The Glocalization of Early Childhood Curriculum

32 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen The TDA did not last long. The tide turned in the early 20th century when John Dewey introduced the “CCA” as a notable feature of his progressive education ideology, which swept through China. Chinese scholars and practitioners immediately took to this innovative concept because it was a contrasting perspective to the “teacher-centered” Herbartianism. The two polar approaches (teacher-centered and child-centered) may be understood from the geocentric and heliocentric theories in astronomy. The geocentric theory positions the Earth at the center of the universe, with the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbiting it. Dewey’s introduction of the CCA as more fitting than the TDA in promoting student learning was like the “Copernican Revolution,” representing a paradigm shift in astronomy from the geocentric theory to the heliocentric theory (ascribing the Sun rather than the Earth as the center of the universe around which the Earth and other planets orbit). The two polar astronomic theories may be used as a metaphor for identifying the central object of the universe. In the 19th century, the TDA could be likened to the Earth, perceived as located at the center of the universe as described in the “geocentric” theory. Since the 20th century, the CCA has been equated to the Sun as the center of the universe in the heliocentric theory. In contemporary ECE, child-centered pedagogy originated from the West and reigns supreme in the global sphere, as it has been promoted in many developing countries, especially those in the East. For those Eastern societies, such as China, Hong Kong, and Singapore, this promotion represents a paradigm shift from the TDA to the CCA and a philosophical belief that young children’s instinctive interests and needs should be at the center of all teaching. However pedagogically innovative and philosophically sound, this paradigm shift seems problematic because it steers directly from one extreme (the TDA) to another extreme (the CCA). Moreover, the extremist perspective of the CCA reveals no room for negotiation, requiring teachers to turn over the authority of instruction to children to merely serve as observers and facilitators of student learning. “Child-Centered” Pedagogy vs. “Teacher-Directed” Pedagogy Inherent Differences The discourses on child-centered and teacher-directed pedagogies have treated these two types of pedagogy as binary and implied that one is better than the other. In contemporary ECE, child-centered pedagogy has been hailed as the better one. In this section, we delineate the inherent differences between the two types of pedagogy and the empirical evidence on the lack of implementation success of child-centered pedagogy in Chinese societies as an example to illustrate the problematic aspects of this progressive educational model. Li et al. (2012) defined pedagogy as the strategies or style of instruction. Of particular relevance are two prominent types: (1) the traditional

“Child-Centered Pedagogy” 33 teacher-directed Chinese pedagogy and (2) the contemporary child-centered EC pedagogy (Chen et al., 2017). The main inherent difference between these two types of pedagogy lies in the degree of freedom and control over the teaching-learning process, with the teacher being the dominant force in dictating learning in teacher-directed pedagogy and the children having the control and freedom over their own learning in child-centered pedagogy (Chen et al., 2017; Li et al., 2012). As pedagogy does not occur in a vacuum, it can be understood as being crafted, situated, and established in accordance with cultural norms and societal expectations. Notably, as defined by Chen et al. (2017), Chinese pedagogy is cast as “a specific instructional model to teaching and learning that is profoundly influenced by traditional Chinese cultural values and extensively practiced in classrooms in Chinese societies,” and contemporary EC pedagogy originated from the West is accordingly influenced by Western cultural values (p. 325). Furthermore, Chen et al. characterized the inherent differences between the two pedagogical methods in this way: Due to their unique cultural roots, traditional Chinese pedagogy and contemporary early childhood pedagogy can be conceptualized as distinct in terms of philosophy (didacticism vs. constructivism), epistemological beliefs (knowledge transmission vs. knowledge construction), theory (behaviorist vs. constructivist), and practice (teacher-directedness vs. child centeredness). (p. 326) Chen et al. (2017) described traditional Chinese pedagogy according to these four areas in this way: (1) philosophically, it is cast as didactic/ instructive; (2) epistemologically, it is one in which the teachers play the role of knowledge transmitter imparting “correct” academic and moral information meant for learners to acquire, memorize, and then practice; (3) theoretically, it reflects the behavioral treatment of the child as a passive recipient of knowledge; and (4) finally, all of these philosophical, epistemological, and theoretical perspectives are collectively mirrored in practices involving mostly teacher-directedness. Teacher-directed practices, in turn, contrast diametrically with child-centered practices so dominant in ECE in Western societies and reflective of Western cultural values, such as the development of individuality and the promotion of child-initiated explorations and project- and play-based learning (Chen et al., 2017; Li et al., 2012). The Project Approach and the High/Scope Curriculum derived from the United States, as well as the Reggio Emilia Approach and the Montessori Method from Italy, are just a few globally renowned forms of child-centered pedagogy promoted fervently in Chinese societies. For example, in Chinese societies, especially mainland China and Hong Kong, policymakers and reform leaders have chosen to follow the global trend by importing child-centered curricula and pedagogy in their ECE reforms.

34 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen Child-Centered Reform Policy in Hong Kong as a Case Example Since the 1990s, the major direction of EC reform in Hong Kong has focused on introducing and implementing a child-centered curriculum and pedagogy. The education authorities and local scholars have avidly advocated progressive educational ideologies of child-centered curriculum guidelines. Accordingly, “child-centeredness” has become the most significant keyword in the various versions of Guidelines to Pre-primary Curriculum in Hong Kong (The Curriculum Development Council, 2006, 2017; The Curriculum Development Institute, 1996). The notion of child-centeredness has been promoted as empowering children with the freedom to initiate, control, and regulate their own learning. Like the magical phrase “Open Sesame!” from the classic story of “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” that opens the magic door, revealing a cave containing a treasure hidden by the 40 thieves, “child-centeredness” has been treated as the magic of “advanced ideology and practice” that unlocks the hidden treasure of children’s developmental and learning potential. Unfortunately, however, lacking successful implementation fidelity (e.g., Chen & Li, 2022; Chen et al., 2017; Li et al., 2012), the notion of child-centeredness has become only a “sound bite” and slogan in Hong Kong, where the traditional TDA continues to serve as the dominant method of instruction there. Thus, in this context, the large-scale reform and implementation of CCA are bound to be counterproductive and self-defeating. There are at least two main reasons for this defeat. First, CCA is inconsistent with traditional Chinese culture, which highly values social rather than individual interests and upholds collectivism rather than individualism. Furthermore, the East and the West differ significantly in their value orientations: Society vs. Person. The CCA originated from the framework of individualism and thus overtly emphasized individual interests and needs. Unfortunately, implementing imported CCA into Chinese EC classrooms undermines collectivism and social interests deeply rooted in Chinese culture. Consequently, attempts at superseding TDA with the CCA may be viewed as an act of “shooting ourselves in the foot.” Second, child-centeredness does not mean child sensitivity. In an individual interview with Lillian Katz, a professor emerita of ECE at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, when she visited Hong Kong in 2003, she commented, “[C]hild-centered approach is nonsense; instead, we should promote the child-sensitive approach. Early childhood curriculum and pedagogy should be sensitive to young children’s interests, developmental levels, and learning needs.” The message was that Chinese societies should promote a child-sensitive approach rather than a CCA. Empirical Evidence In light of the paradigm shift from traditional TDA to innovative CCA in Chinese societies, Li and his research team (e.g., Chen et al., 2017; Li et al.,

“Child-Centered Pedagogy” 35 2012) have analyzed the implementation of the CCA vs. the TDA there. For example, Li et al. (2012) examined pedagogical practices of early literacy in several carefully selected classrooms in Shenzhen (China), Hong Kong, and Singapore. This first comparison of Chinese classrooms has generated empirical evidence to help settle the debate between the CCA and the TDA by uncovering that the CCA has not been implemented with fidelity in these Chinese classrooms. Furthermore, in exploring the actual pedagogies in EC classrooms in these three Chinese societies, which formed a spectrum of cultural openness and Westernization, Li et al. found a hybrid of the CCA and the TDA at play: teacher-directed whole-class theme-based teaching mixed with child-centered individual and group learning activities. Li et al. further uncovered that while the theme-based instruction was prioritized, the nature and conduct of the other activities reflected the teachers’ application of the CCA, including engaging children in question-and-answer interactions and encouraging them to share their viewpoints and vote for their favorite characters in the story. Moreover, while the Project Approach was implemented in Hong Kong and Singapore kindergartens, it was conducted in a teacher-directed manner (Li et al., 2012). Similarly, Chen et al. (2017) also found that the Project Approach implemented in a typical Hong Kong kindergarten was conducted in a hybrid method (teacher-directed and child-centered). The major reason for the lack of implementability in these Chinese classrooms is that the imported CCA and its underlying ideologies conflict with traditional Chinese culture and contextual circumstances, such as the examination-oriented and competitive education system, parental expectations of academic achievement, and contextual limitations (e.g., time limitation, teachers’ own emotional insecurity), all which are nearly impossible to eradicate or supersede in Chinese societies (Chen et al., 2017; Li et al., 2012). In a more recent study, Li et al. (2020) found that Hong Kong kindergarten teachers created reciprocal and constructive relationships with children during knowledge construction and delivery, inviting them to express their own ideas or opinions. However, they also found that the teachers conducted direct instruction quite frequently because they had to complete the knowledge transmission process and gain control over the classroom in the process. In addition, they found a significant “belief-practice gap”: the teachers claimed during the interview that they supported the CCA, but in actual classroom observations, they were found quite teacher-directed in practice. Taken together, Li et al. (2020) concluded that a hybrid of teacher-directed instruction and child-centered constructive interaction was the mainstream in the Hong Kong EC classrooms in their study. The aforementioned findings give rise to a case of balancing two binary ends: TDA versus CCA. They also suggest that direct transplantation of Western curriculum pedagogy into Chinese classrooms is not considered appropriate due to social, cultural, and contextual incompatibilities. Instead, one should recognize that cultural tradition and social values serve as both assets and liabilities for developing EC pedagogy in the age of globalization.

36 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen In this connection, child-centered curriculum and pedagogy should be continuously re-examined, re-conceptualized, and re-considered as to whether and how it may suit the local culture, tradition, and educational context and capitalize them as assets rather than liabilities. The Dual-Centeredness Theory: A Dynamic View of the Classroom Dynamics Like the “geocentric” and “heliocentric” theories debated by astronomers, scholars, and philosophers, the TDA and the CCA have also been contested from different perspectives. However, unlike the geocentric and heliocentric models, the TDA and the CCA can be right or wrong depending on the context within which they operate. Therefore, viewing instruction as neither exclusively based on the TDA nor the CCA, we believe that the duality of centeredness or the co-existence of both the TDA and the CCA may be the most proper characterization of the reality in many EC settings globally. To date, the most debatable issue regarding ECC reform in Chinese societies, especially in Hong Kong and China, is how to seek a balance between the TDA and the CCA. In the past three decades, most Chinese scholars and policymakers have been optimistically promoting the CCA imported from the United States, and all the teachers have been urged to implement it. Unfortunately, the actual results of this implementation are not so optimistic. Over the years, although EC teachers generally accepted the concept of child-centeredness, they have had difficulties putting it into practice (Chen et al., 2017; Li et al., 2012). Some are even reluctant, resistant, and unwilling to implement it in their classrooms. Li (2005) critically analyzed the problem underlying the implementation of the CCA in China and proposed a new theoretical framework—namely, the dual-centeredness (child-centered and teacher-centered) theory as the central representation of the reality in ECE in China and other similar cultural contexts. This section presents an English version of this dual-centeredness conceptualization that helped to settle the debate of the TDA vs. the CCA. The Dual-Centeredness Theory According to Li (2005), the dual-centeredness theory advocates that there are two parallel processes of teaching and learning, like “a coin with two sides”: teaching and student learning are the two simultaneous processes led by teachers and students, respectively. On the one side, teachers are the masters and the center of teaching, and on the other side, students are the owners and the center of their own learning. Furthermore, the roles played by teachers and students are reciprocal and complementary. In particular, teachers are the subject during the teaching process, while students are the object. In contrast, during the student learning process, teachers are the object,

“Child-Centered Pedagogy” 37 whereas students are the subject. This theory captures the complex yet dynamic dual nature involving teaching and student learning. As an example of the dual-centeredness theory, we describe the daily teaching and learning activities in one typical Hong Kong EC classroom. These activities demonstrate three types of teacher-child relationships. First, during the circle time or theme-based whole-class teaching period, the teacher plans, prepares, and delivers instruction, thus becoming central to the teaching-learning process. Under this circumstance, the teacher plays a leading role, reflecting the teacher-centered approach. Second, during smallgroup learning activities, children are assigned to work in small groups to accomplish the tasks planned and prepared by the teacher. Under this circumstance, the teacher initially plays a leading role in assigning children to small groups and orchestrating learning activities. However, the decisions concerning how group members work collaboratively to complete the tasks are left up to the children. Thus, small-group activities attest to the teacher-centered and child-centered duality. Third, during free play and individual learning time, the teacher serves as an observer and facilitator while children decide on and initiate their own learning activities. In this situation, children become the masters and authors of their own learning, reflecting the CCA. The daily routine of a typical kindergarten in Hong Kong usually includes the aforementioned three situations, with each accounting for one-third of the daily time. Moreover, as most Hong Kong kindergartens operate a halfday mode (three hours per day), they tend to divide the time equally across the three classroom activities: one-hour teacher-centered, one-hour child-centered, and the remaining hour a dual-centeredness approach, combining teacher-centeredness and child-centeredness into one activity. This dual-centeredness theory suggests that neither Herbart’s teacher-centered approach nor Dewey’s CCA is adequate in capturing the complexities involved in the teaching and learning process of the aforementioned Hong Kong case for three main reasons. First, with respect to teacher-centeredness and child-centeredness, each represents only a one-sided view of the same coin, which does not appear to acknowledge the existence of the other view. Second, both approaches interpret pedagogy as a one-way epistemological relationship between teaching and student learning. The TDA views students as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge from the teacher as the expert. Whereas, the CCA relegates the role of the teacher to the sidelines in favor of supporting children’s autonomy, freedom, and control of initiating their own learning and constructing their own knowledge. Third, it is too simplistic to ascribe the dynamic pedagogical interactions as either teacher-centered (“geocentric”) or child-centered (“heliocentric”) with the teacher or the child orbiting around the other. Just like the rotational relationship between the Sun and the Earth, the teacher-child relationship in pedagogy is also dynamic and complex. This complexity reflects the teaching and student learning as situational, involving both child-centeredness and teacher-centeredness to accomplish their respective purposes and intentions.

38 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen The Middle Way as Potentially the Best Way The “Doctrine of the Mean” or the Middle Way reflects the teachings of Confucian’s Zhongyong (中庸) and Buddhism as the best way to obtain harmony and prosperity. For instance, Chinese people strive to seek a middle ground when resolving conflicts to maintain harmony (Chen et al., 2017). As a Chinese cultural virtue rooted in Confucianism, the Middle Way has been applied in human interactions in all fields, including philosophy, politics, economy, culture, education, ecology, and even daily life. Furthermore, the Middle Way has become the basic law used to resolve contradictions between society and nature. This basic law becomes the emblematic force necessary for balancing the participation of two separate yet interwoven actors in the teaching-learning process—namely, the teachers and children. Thus, the Middle Way may be cast as reflecting the dual-centeredness theory. It has also been found in what Weikart (2000) identified as the “open frame” type of ECC model: both the teacher and children are at the center of teaching and learning with high levels of engagement. Conclusion Child-centered pedagogy has had more than a three-century history marked by acclamation and progress, as well as controversies and critiques. While child-centered pedagogy is endorsed globally, especially in Chinese societies, empirical evidence has demonstrated that due to cultural, social, and contextual incompatibilities, it has not rendered success in these societies. The fundamental problem lies in the pedagogical discourse that apparently demarcates child-centeredness and teacher-centeredness into a binary. In reviewing conceptual and empirical evidence, we conclude that in treating the notion of centeredness, both the teacher and children are at the center of the educational process to fulfill their respective roles and functions. The Middle Way (combining both child-centeredness and teacher-directedness) is perhaps the most optimal in providing children a well-rounded educational experience drawing on both the knowledge imparted from the teacher and that constructed by the child through one’s own self-directed exploration and discovery. Note 1 See Chapter 4 for an extensive, historical review and discussion of DAP. References Baker, B. (1998). Child-centered teaching, redemption, and educational identities: A history of the present. Educational Theory, 48(2), 155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1741-5446.1998.00155.x Brooker, L. (2005). Learning to be a child: Cultural diversity and early years ideology. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 115–130). Open University Press.

“Child-Centered Pedagogy” 39 Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. Rethinking childhood (Vol. 2). Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Chen, J. J., & Li, H. (2022). Tian Shi (timing) Di Li (context) Ren He (human capital): A case study of the implementability of imported early childhood approaches in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2022.2107588 Chen, J. J., Li, H., & Wang, J. (2017). Implementing the project approach: A case study of hybrid pedagogy in a Hong Kong kindergarten. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543. 2017.1309479 Chung, S., & Walsh, D. J. (2000). Unpacking child-centredness: A history of meanings. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 002202700182727 Clark, M. (1989) Anastasia is a normal developer because she is unique. Oxford  Review  of Education, 15(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0305498890150305 Curriculum Development Council. (1996). Guide to the pre-primary curriculum. Hong Kong: The Author. Curriculum Development Council. (2006). Guide to the pre-primary curriculum. Hong Kong: The Author. Curriculum Development Council. (2017). Kindergarten education curriculum guide. Hong Kong: The Author. Davies, B. (1989a). Gender equity and early childhood. Commonwealth Schools Commission. Davies, B. (1989b) Frogs and snails and feminist tales. Allen & Unwin. Delpit, L. (1995) Other people’s children. New York: New Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. The MacMillian Company. Doddington, C., & Hilton, M. (2007). Child-centred education: Reviving the creative tradition. SAGE Publications. Edmondson, H. T. (2006). John Dewey and the decline of American education: How the patron saint of schools has corrupted teaching and learning. ISI Books. Fallace, T. (2015). The savage origins of child-centered pedagogy, 1871–1913. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 73–103. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0002831214561629 Graue, E. (2005). (De)centering the kindergarten prototype in the child-centred classroom. In S. Ryan & S. Grieshaber (Eds.), Practical transformations and transformational practices: Globalization, postmodernism, and early childhood education (pp. 39–58). Elsevier. Henry, A. (1996). Five black women teachers critique child-centered pedagogy: Possibilities and limitations of oppositional standpoints. Curriculum Inquiry, 26(4), 363–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/1180194 Langford, R. (2010). Critiquing child-centred pedagogy to bring children and early childhood educators into the centre of a democratic pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010. 11.1.113 Li, H. (2005). Developing school-based curriculum in Hong Kong kindergartens: Insights, challenges, and solutions. The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Li, H., Rao, N., & Tse, S. K. (2012). Adapting Western pedagogies for Chinese literacy instruction: Case studies of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore preschools. Early Education & Development, 23(4), 603–621.

40 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen Li, H., Wang, X. C., & Wong, J. M. S. (2011). Early childhood curriculum reform in China: Perspectives from examining teachers’ beliefs and practices in Chinese literacy teaching. Chinese Education & Society, 44(6), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.2753/ CED1061-1932440601 Li, Z., Yang, W., & Li, H. (2020). Teachers’ pedagogical interactions as linked to personal beliefs and profiles: A mixed-methods study in Hong Kong kindergartens. International Journal of Early Years Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669760.2020.1778452 MacNaughton, G. (1997). Feminist praxis and the gaze in early childhood curriculum. Gender and Education, 9(3), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09540259721286 Masterson, M. (2022). Teaching to enhance each child’s development and learning. In Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (4th ed., pp. 181–214). NAEYC. Mili (2018). Pedagogical reform in Indian school education: Examining the child-centred approach. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(3), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12322 Norquay, N. (1999). Social difference and the problem of the “unique individual”: An uneasy legacy of child-centred pedagogy. Canadian Journal of Education/ Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 24(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1585927 Nykiel-Herbert, B. (2004). Mis-constructing knowledge: The case of learner-centred pedagogy in South Africa. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 34(3), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-004-5306-x O’Donoghue, T. A. (1994). The need for educational reform and the role of teacher training: An alternative perspective. International Journal of Educational Development, 14(2), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-0593(94)90023-X Pieratt, J. R. (2010). Advancing the ideas of John Dewey: A look at the high tech schools. Education and Culture, 26(2), 52–64. Power, S., Rhys, M., Taylor, C., & Waldron, S. (2018). How child-centred education favours some learners more than others. Review of Education, 7(3), 570–592. https://doi.org.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/10.1002/rev3.3137 Ryan, S. (2005) Freedom to choose: Examining children’s experiences in choice time. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 99–114). Open University Press. Schweisfurth, M. (2011). Learner-centred education in developing country contexts: From solution to problem? International Journal of Educational Development, 31(5), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.03.005 Shah, R. K. (2019). Child-centered education: Criticisms. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.34293/education. v8i1.1253 Singer, E. (1996). Prisoners of the method: Breaking open the child-centred pedagogy in day care centres. International Journal of Early Years Education, 4(2), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966976960040203 Singer, E. (2005). The liberation of the child: A recurrent theme in the history of education in western societies, Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 611– 620. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430500131395 Steedman, C. (1985). The mother made conscious: The historical development of a primary school pedagogy, History Workshop Journal, 20, 149–163. https://doi. org/10.1093/hwj/20.1.149

“Child-Centered Pedagogy” 41 Steedman, C. (1987). Prisonhouses. In M. Lawn & G. Grace (Eds.), Teachers: The culture and politics of work (pp. 117–129). Falmer Press. Tabulawa, R. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centred pedagogy and political democratization: A critique. Comparative Education, 39(1), 7–26. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03050060302559 Walkerdine, V. (1985). On the regulation of speaking and silence: Subjectivity, class and gender in contemporary schooling. In C. Steedman, C. Urwin & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Language, gender and childhood (pp. 203–241). Routledge & Kegan Paul. Walkerdine, V. (1990). School fictions. Verso. Weikart, D. P. (2000). Early Childhood Education: Need and Opportunity. Fundamentals of Educational Planning 65. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7 place de Fontenoy, F 75352, Paris 07 SP, France. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000122380/PDF/122380eng. pdf.multi

DOI: 10.4324/9781003274865-3 3 Constructivism and Instructivism in Early Childhood Curriculum Critiques and Reflections Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen Constructivism: A Historical Review What Is Constructivism? Constructivism is a theoretical framework for explaining how knowledge is generated and how students learn. This framework has dominated the field of learning science over the past few decades (Li et al., 2020; Solomon, 1994). Individuals who endorse constructivism are known as constructivists (e.g., Piaget, Vygotsky). Constructivists believe that knowledge is constructed through individual and social interactions with the world. They also believe that knowledge construction reflects one’s perspective and values (Kincheloe, 2000). In understanding how children learn, constructivists assume that they are constructors of their knowledge through their own experiences (Piaget, 1963) and social interactions with others (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, learning is regarded as an active, contextualized, constructive, and cognitive process. For instance, children may create their own subjective or objective reality and experiment with it through individual and/or social experiences. However, many factors can affect how children construct their knowledge, including cultural influences (Solomon, 1994). According to the idea of constructivism, children’s learning environments are social in nature and, thus, should promote group cooperation with peer support and employ various measures and resources to achieve targeted learning and solve daily problems (Wilson, 1996). In addition, the constructivist-oriented classroom reflects considerations of the physical environment, classroom management, child and teacher roles, language and communication channels, child choices, children’s interaction with content, and evaluation of children’s learning. DeVries and Zan (1994) summarized the characteristics of the constructivist classroom as including three main components: (1) organization: focusing on meeting children’s needs, encouraging peer interaction, and promoting children’s responsibility; (2) activities: catering to children’s learning interests, encouraging active experimentation, and promoting cooperation; and (3) the role of the teacher and the relationship with children: promoting the construction of knowledge, interpersonal understanding and cooperation, and moral values.

Constructivism and Instructivism 43 During the past century, constructivism has been further elaborated by the three theoretical giants: Piaget, Vygotsky, and Freire. However, their unique views about how knowledge is understood, assessed, and delivered differ. For example, Piaget’s (1963) theory of cognitive development highlights the qualitative differences in children’s knowledge construction processes according to the stages of their development. Vygotsky (1978) believed that child development, learning, and knowledge acquisition are embedded in the social and cultural contexts within which young children live and learn. Freire (1994) further elucidated that knowledge is obtained when young children gather to exchange ideas, share problems, and make meaning of their experiences. A common theme among Piaget, Vygotsky, and Freire lies in their understanding of the process of inquiry and knowledge creation, through which children explore and learn. Accordingly, “constructive” experiences should include individual learning experiences, problem-based activities, project-oriented inquiry, peer dialogues, and teacher-student interactions that help children make sense of the subject matter, introduce them to diverse sources of knowledge, and provide them with opportunities to convey their understanding through multiple means (Ampadu & Danso, 2018). Development vs. Learning: Which One Comes First? Many, if not all, scholars and educators agree that development and learning are intertwined. However, they may disagree on which one influences which. Perhaps a clear example of this discordance is between Piaget and Vygotsky. Specifically, Piaget believed that children’s development precedes their learning, whereas Vygotsky espoused that learning precedes development. Highlighting the decisive role of genetics in development, Piaget (1963) endorsed that development is an unfolding process preprogrammed by a child’s genetic makeup. In contrast, Vygotsky (1978) explained that learning is affected by social, cultural, and historical factors. Constructivism: Piaget vs. Vygotsky In education, perhaps the most cited classical theorists of constructivism are Piaget and Vygotsky. While both their theories converged on constructivism, Piaget and Vygotsky also upheld divergent perspectives. On the matter of development and learning, there are nine major distinctions in view between Piaget and Vygotsky: 1. The defining characteristics: Piaget theorized distinct developmental stages, asserting that development drives learning, whereas Vygotsky believed in social processes, viewing learning as the driver of development. 2. The mechanism of development: Piaget believed that cognitive development is influenced by one’s ability to engage in processes, especially assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration, which are considered universal across all children. He also asserted that a child is not comparable to a

44 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen “miniature adult” because a child is qualitatively different from an adult in development. In contrast, Vygotsky believed that child development is variable across cultures and the social interactions are key to cognitive development. 3. The nature of learning: Piaget believed that learning is solitary and individualized (e.g., learning through active construction of one’s experience), whereas Vygotsky viewed learning as social and contextualized (e.g., learning through social interaction with others). 4. The driving source for early development: Piaget believed in the importance of maturation and conflicts, whereas Vygotsky endorsed social interactions with others (e.g., peers, parents, teachers, and other adults) as key to one’s development. 5. The roles of language: Piaget supposed that thought precedes language, whereas Vygotsky suggested that language drives thought. 6. The role of the child: Piaget believed that a child is an active independent constructor of knowledge through individual interaction with the world, whereas Vygotsky asserted that a child learns through social interaction with others. 7. The role of the teacher: Piaget believed that teachers should provide an environment conducive for children to individually explore, investigate, and experiment with ideas. Particularly, Piaget’s (1963) cognitive development theory suggests that children develop differently at different stages. As such, teachers should try their best to understand the children’s unique experiences and ways of thinking at their individual developmental stage and engage them in learning activities that can address their developmental needs at that stage. In contrast, Vygotsky suggested that teachers should involve learners in socially organized activities and provide developmentally appropriate scaffoldings to them. Particularly, Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory focuses on the critical role of culture and social interactions in shaping knowledge construction. This theory views child development as a socially mediated process through which a child acquires cultural values, social beliefs, and problem-solving and learning strategies from others. Accordingly, this view gives importance to children’s interactions with caregivers, peers, teachers, and the material world as optimal for their cognitive development. Vygotsky defined each child’s potential for cognitive development as occurring within their zone of proximal development (ZPD), referring to as a process in which young children achieve new learning through the help of a more competent individual (e.g., the teacher, more advanced peers) that they would not have otherwise learned independently. From this perspective, cooperative learning, mixed-ability groups of children, and mixed-age tutoring could effectively promote cognitive growth in children within their individual ZPD through scaffolding. 8. The nature of readiness: Piaget believed that the genetics and biological stages of development decide when children are ready to learn

Constructivism and Instructivism 45 independently, whereas Vygotsky suggested that children could perform within their ZPD through proper scaffoldings. 9. The role of biology: Piaget suggested that maturation dictates developmental progression, whereas Vygotsky believed that children are born already with some innate mental capacities for learning (e.g., perception, memory). As the preceding nine points highlighted, both Piaget and Vygotsky contributed uniquely to understanding development and learning. However, neither theorist’s view could serve as the singularly correct one, and neither alone could tell the whole story. Nevertheless, the contrasting viewpoints held by Piaget and Vygotsky can be potentially resolved by arriving at a middle ground in a process that combines both ideas to provide a greater understanding of child development and learning. The Myths about Constructivism Although constructivism is a well-recognized and adopted framework in education, there are widespread myths about this concept. We highlight three here. The first myth is that constructivism is equivalent to child-centeredness. For example, according to Baines and Stanley (2000), constructivism has been regarded as child-centered rather than subject-centered or teacher-centered. Constructivism, however, is not the same as the various child-centered teaching approaches that have emerged and been practiced over the centuries. For instance, Rousseau and Dewey advocated that teachers should minimize their interference with children’s “natural” development. However, constructivist approaches to teaching also include having teachers engage directly with children to co-construct knowledge, reflecting a balance between teacher-directed and student-centered learning. The second myth concerning constructivism is that teachers need not be experts in specific content areas (Baines & Stanley, 2000). Quite the contrary, constructivist teaching puts high demands on teachers’ understanding of the subject. Constructivist classrooms demonstrate the importance of deep subject knowledge required of the teacher. The third myth is that there are no wrong answers to a problem and that students personalize their own knowledge. Holt-Reynolds (2000) portrayed a situation where a prospective English teacher endorsing constructivism encouraged her students to develop their own interpretations of the story, regardless of the accuracy or fidelity of their interpretations. Quite the contrary, effective constructivist teaching actually does involve applying certain standards to evaluate the accuracy of ideas. Constructivism vs. Instructivism This section compares and contrasts the two big theoretical frameworks: constructivism and instructivism. Each framework explains how children learn and how teachers should teach accordingly.

46 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen Constructivism vs. Instructivism Traditional teaching in Chinese societies is dominated by teacher-directed instruction, known as instructivism (Cai et al., 2021). The instructivism perspective holds that children must learn a fixed amount of knowledge directly from their teachers, textbooks, and other sources (Kaymakamoglu, 2018). Accordingly, teachers are expected to serve as transmitters of ideas and knowledge directly to their students through a well-planned, teacher-directed curriculum and pedagogy. However, because of its focus on teachers and their teaching, instructivism leaves little room for children to learn creatively and independently. Perhaps the key problem is that instructivism is based on the view that knowledge is transmitted and knowledge construction is directed by the teacher. In contrast, constructivist approaches to teaching and student learning promote processes, such as problem-based learning and project-based inquiry. For example, the constructivist teacher encourages children to explore answers to a problem independently and collaboratively with peers. Constructivists highly value problem-solving and inquiry-based learning activities. In the process, children can explore and experiment with their ideas, make conclusions and inferences, and communicate their knowledge via multiple means. Bruner (1966) stated that a constructivist pedagogical approach should address four main points: (1) learning tendencies, (2) the structure of knowledge so that children can easily grasp it, (3) the most effective order of material presentation, and (4) the types and paces of rewards and punishments to motivate student learning. Because of the presumed and confirmed benefits of constructivism for children’s development and learning, scholars and international governmental constituents have been actively promoting constructivist ideas with great enthusiasm. The widespread constructivism is particularly salient in early childhood education (ECE), leading some societies, such as China and Hong Kong, to adjust their curriculum and pedagogical landscape. Unfortunately, this constructivist movement has not been successful in certain countries that embrace instructivism, as explained by the case studies of China and Singapore later in this chapter. Toward a Fusion of Constructivism and Instructivism Constructivism emphasizes that children actively construct knowledge through their own experiences and interactions with others and the environment, whereas instructivism views learning as a process of direct knowledge transfer or dissemination (Yin et al., 2020). Accordingly, the constructivist  classroom is child-centered, inquiry-oriented, and process-driven (Li  et  al.,  2012). In contrast, the instructivist classroom is teacher-led, academic-centered, whole-class, and product-oriented (Lee & Yelland, 2017). As constructivist approaches to education are promoted globally, they have also inspired early childhood curriculum (ECC) reforms, especially

Constructivism and Instructivism 47 in Asian societies, such as mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore (Huang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2020). The Case of China Constructivism has been promoted in ECE reforms by education authorities in China and is widely accepted by Chinese teachers (Huang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2012; Rao et al., 2010; Yin et al., 2020), whereas instructivism has been heavily critiqued by education authorities (Huang et al., 2019). However, the endorsement of constructivism in the traditional Chinese context can result in two gaps: (1) the policy-practice gap and (2) the belief-practice gap. A solution to these gaps involves a fusion of constructivism and instructivism (Huang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2020). Cai et al. (2021) conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate whether the fusion of these two frameworks in pedagogy could be observed in the block-building activities in Chinese classrooms. They found that the six-phase of the Engineer Design Process (EDP) could be observed in the teacher-child dialogues in Chinese block-building activities. However, these researchers also uncovered that Chinese kindergarten teachers focused more on knowledge transmission and paid less attention to the test phase in EDP, such as collecting and analyzing data and defining or modifying specifications. This finding corroborated Huang et al.’s (2019) finding, revealing that Chinese teachers emphasized knowledge transmission while promoting knowledge construction. The fusion of constructivism and instructivism found in Chinese kindergartens might have reflected Chinese early childhood teachers’ training in the instructivist approach in their teacher education programs (Huang et al., 2019). Accordingly, Chinese teachers engaged in knowledge transmission in a domain-based approach, leaving little time for and attention to children’s learning through the trial and error process. However, some evidence of constructivism was also reported by Cai et al. (2021), who identified that the top three types of strategies were “invite opinions or ideas,” “propose action or inquiry activity,” and “state agreement or position.” These strategies were employed to invite young children to contribute their ideas to the EDP and engage them in the action proposal and scientific inquiry. In this way, young children could express their ideas during debate. Consequently, young children learned to “build on or clarify others’ contributions” and “make other relevant contributions.” This finding provides evidence of constructivism during block-building activities. Despite so, Cai et al. also found that direct instruction was still effective in Chinese block-building activities as it was in literacy classes found in other studies (Huang et al., 2019; Yin et al., 2020). The Case of Singapore Singapore is a multiracial and multicultural society with a mixed composition  of ethnic Chinese, Malays, and ethnic Indians forming most of its

48 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen population. This society highly values meritocracy and education, understands the importance of ECE, and strives for quality ECE to give every child a good start (Goy, 2017). Accordingly, the education authorities have launched a wave of reform to improve the overall quality of ECE, as evident in the new curriculum framework, “Nurturing Early Learners: A Curriculum Framework for Kindergartens in Singapore” (NEL), released in 2012. Six fundamental principles were proposed: “integrated approach to learning, teachers as facilitators of learning, engaging children in learning through purposeful play, authentic learning through quality interactions, children as constructors of knowledge, and holistic development” (MOE, 2012, p. 25). However, inspired by progressive constructivism, applying these constructivist methods has posed challenges to Singapore’s early childhood teachers who have been engaged in traditional pedagogical practices. In particular, the education authorities have revised the Chinese curriculum syllabus to promote child-centered pedagogy in early childhood classrooms (Tan, 2006). This revised syllabus highly values young children’s active role and needs in learning, following developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) guidelines from the United States. Additionally, “NEL Framework for Mother Tongue Languages: Chinese” issued by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in 2014 followed the same trend. Accordingly, young children are regarded as curious and active learners who are encouraged to learn Chinese by participating in various relevant activities (MOE, 2014). This Chinese language framework (MOE, 2014) has further confirmed the six constructivism principles proposed in the original NEL framework (MOE, 2012). Yin et al. (2020) conducted a mixed-methods study on Chinese literacy pedagogy in Singapore, revealing that the main patterns included knowledge delivery, factual content-dominated dialogue, and monotonous, teacher-dominated discussion. These researchers believed that these methods aligned with instructivism. However, they also identified some constructivism elements in teacher dialogues, including engaging children in talking and discussion and crafting the dialogue content according to a chosen theme and the children’s learning interests. They concluded that a fusion of constructivist and instructivist classroom dialogic approaches emerged. The dominating pattern of “discussion as the form, instruction as the function” demonstrated the substantial influence of constructivism and instructivism among kindergarten teachers’ practices in Singapore (Yin et al., 2020, p. 595). Yin et al.’s (2020) finding suggests that Singapore’s early childhood classrooms are still in the process of transitioning from instructivism to constructivism. This means that there may be an incongruence between constructivism advocated by the state system and instructivism evident in the context of elite politics. In this situation, policymakers in Singapore might consider refining the ECC to suit local conditions, especially in early Chinese education, because simply transplanting constructivism to the Singapore context can create a gap between policymakers’ positioning and teachers’ understanding. A doable solution may be to hybridize constructivist and instructivist pedagogies into a localized and balanced fusion.

Constructivism and Instructivism 49 The Fusion of Constructivism and Instructivism Both the case of block-building activities in China (Cai et al., 2021) and the case of Chinese literacy pedagogy in Singapore suggest that constructivism and instructivism actually coexist in early childhood classrooms. This phenomenon has also been previously identified. For instance, Rao et al. (2010) found a unique pedagogy reflecting a fusion of traditional Chinese beliefs and contemporary notions of DAP in Hong Kong kindergartens. Moreover, they associated this fusion with the influences of various cultural-contextual factors. Li et al. (2012) also found that Beijing, Hong Kong, and Singapore all implemented progressive, innovative pedagogies (e.g., child-centered) from European-American contexts with traditional Chinese pedagogy (e.g., teacher-directed) into a unique fusion of the two types of pedagogy. Similarly, Chen et al. (2017) found that the Project Approach in a Hong Kong kindergarten was transformed into a hybrid of traditional Chinese and progressive contemporary pedagogies. These researchers further uncovered that this fusion appeared to have been engendered by the teachers’ practical considerations of their contextual realities, such as time limitations, curriculum demands, and parental expectations. In light of these findings, Chen et al. concluded that hybrid pedagogy appeared to be an optimal solution to balance local contextual needs with globally promoted innovative approaches. In another study, Cheung (2017) also found a hybrid of teacher-directed and child-centered approaches in Hong Kong kindergartens. This fusion approach of constructivism and instructivism to balance local and global educational needs has also been found in other studies of Chinese societies: mainland China (Huang et al., 2019), Hong Kong (Li et al., 2020), and Singapore (Yin et al., 2020). All of the convergent evidence revealed by these studies suggest that neither constructivism nor instructivism is superior to the other, and thus, there is no one best way to approach teaching and student learning, but there is always a Middle Way (avoiding all extremist views). The discussion in this chapter attests that the Middle Way is a hybrid of constructivism and instructivism in early childhood pedagogical practices. To illustrate the concept of the Middle Way, we apply the metaphor of the pendulum swing, as shown in Figure 3.1. The Pendulum Never Stops History may repeat itself; everything can find its origin or clues to its past. A historical review of the educational reforms in the past century indicates a consistent pattern best represented by a pendulum that swings back and forth and from side to side (Li, 2005). The United States, for instance, has gone through many educational reforms in the past 100 years in the effects of ebb and flow like a pendulum swing, keep moving and never stopping. For example, Dewey’s progressive education of experimental learning and constructivist approaches to education emerged in the early 1900s in the United States and was later replaced by the behaviorism school (i.e., programmed

50 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen teaching, instructional-based theory) around the 1950s. Later, the “back to basics” education movement in the 1970s focused on teaching and strengthening students’ skill acquisition of the three Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) to improve their educational outcomes. This movement can be considered employing an instructivist approach to teaching and student learning. In ECE in the United States, however, the instructivist and academically driven approach was quickly counteracted by the call for the constructivist-based DAP first advocated by the National Association for the Education of Young Children in the late 1980s (Bredekamp, 1987; NAEYC, 1986) (A more detailed discussion of this advocacy, history, and evaluation of DAP can be found in Chapter 4). Since the 1980s, guided by the DAP framework, the approach to ECE in the United States has swung back to Dewey’s progressive education ideologies. This pendulum swinging back may be interpreted as an intentional effort to revitalize constructivism and relinquish instructivism in ECE in the United States. Similarly, China has also gone through swinging processes in its own education reforms. When John Dewey visited China in the early 1900s, he left behind progressive education ideologies, which subsequently inspired a 40-year process of Americanization of education in China until the early 1950s. When the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, the new regime decided to learn from the former Soviet Union and started another 40-year process of Sovietization of education in China. Then when  China opened the door to the world, another 40-year process of Americanization of education commenced and was in full swing. However, neither Americanization nor Sovietization of education in China has been socially, culturally, and contextually appropriate, as China has its own unique history, which requires a unique education reform plan and implementation Figure 3.1 The pendulum of educational reforms in the United States and China. Source: (Li, 2005, p. 6).

Constructivism and Instructivism 51 that reflects the country’s social, cultural, and contextual merits and circumstances. In fact, the middle position of the pendulum is the most stable and efficient and, thus, represents the best way. However, choosing the Middle Way does not mean that we do not change and transform our ideas and practices. Instead, we must learn from history and its associated lessons to achieve the most constructive education system for children. For now, a balance between globalization and localization (giving rise to glocalization) and between constructivism and instructivism appears to be the most optimal middle ground. References Ampadu, E., & Danso, A. (2018). Constructivism in mathematics classrooms: Listening to Ghanaian teachers’ and students’ views. Africa Education Review, 15(3), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2017.1340808 Baines, L. A., & Stanley, G. (2000). “We want to see the teacher”: Constructivism and the rage against expertise. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(4), 327–330. https://doi. org/10.1177/003172170008200422 Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. NAEYC. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59). Harvard University Press. Cai, L.M., Wu, D., Chen, S., Zhu, J., & Li, H. (2021). The fusion of constructivism and instructivism in Chinese kindergartens: An analysis of the teaching dialogues in the engineer block building activities. Early Education and Development, 32(7), 1033–1052, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1812936 Chen, J. J., Li, H., & Wang, J. Y. (2017). Implementing the project approach: A case study of hybrid pedagogy in a Hong Kong kindergarten. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543. 2017.1309479 Cheung, R. H. P. (2017). Teacher-directed versus child-centred: The challenge of promoting creativity in Chinese preschool classrooms. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 25(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1217253 DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children: Creating a constructivist atmosphere in early education (Vol. 47). Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1994). Educación y participación comunitaria. In Nuevas perspectivas críticas en educación (pp. 83–96). Paidós Ibérica. Goy, P. (2017). National day rally 2017: More childcare places and MOE kindergartens; new institute for preschool teachers. https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/ national-day-rally-2017-more-childcare-places-and-moe-kindergartens-new-institutefor-pre Holt-Reynolds, D. (2000). What does the teacher do? Constructivist pedagogies and prospective teachers’ beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00032-33 Huang, R., Yang, W., & Li, H. (2019). On the road to participatory pedagogy: A mixed-methods study of pedagogical interaction in Chinese kindergartens. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2019

52 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen Kaymakamoglu, S. E. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs, perceived practice, and actual classroom practice in relation to traditional (teacher-centered) and constructivist (learner-centered) teaching (Note 1). Journal of Education and Learning, 7(1), 29–37. http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n1p29 Kincheloe, J. L. (2000). Making critical thinking critical. Counterpoints, 110, 23–40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42975935 Lee, I. F., & Yelland, N. J. (2017). Crafting miniature students in the early years: Schooling for desirable childhoods in East Asia. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0183-7 Li, H. (2005). Developing school-based curriculum in Hong Kong kindergartens: Insights, challenges, and solutions. The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Li, H., Rao, N., & Tse, S. K. (2012). Adopting Western pedagogies into teaching Chinese literacy instruction: Case studies of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Singapore preschools. Early Education and Development, 23(4), 603–621. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10409289.2010.536441 Li, Z. Y., Yang, W., & Li, H. (2020). Teachers’ pedagogical interactions as linked to personal beliefs and profiles: A mixed-methods study in Hong Kong kindergartens. International Journal of Early Years Education, 28(4), 366–381. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09669760.2020.1778452 Ministry of Education (MOE). (2012). Nurturing early learners: A curriculum framework for kindergartens in Singapore. https://www.nel.sg/qql/slot/u143/ Resources/Downloadable/pdf/kindergarten-curriculum-framework.pdf Ministry of Education (MOE). (2014). NEL framework for mother tongue languages: Chinese. https://www.nel.sg/qql/slot/u143/Resources/Downloadable/pdf/nelframework/nel-framework-for-mtls-chinese.pdf NAEYC. (1986). Developmentally appropriate practice [Position statement]. NAEYC. Piaget, J. (1963). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. Norton. Rao, N., Ng, S. S., & Pearson, E. (2010). Preschool pedagogy: A fusion of traditional Chinese beliefs and contemporary notions of appropriate practice. In C. K. K. Chan, & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner (pp. 255–279). Dordrecht. Solomon, J. (1994) The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269408560027 Tan, C. (2006). Change and continuity: Chinese language policy in Singapore. Language Policy, 5, 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-005-5625-7 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press. Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology. Yin, Q., Yang, W., & Li, H. (2020). Blending Constructivism and instructivism: A study of classroom dialogue in Singapore kindergartens. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(4), 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543. 2019.1709926

DOI: 10.4324/9781003274865-4 4 Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education What’s Missing? Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li The Origin and Definition of DAP Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is a theoretical and practical framework conceived, delivered, and nurtured developmentally by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in the United States. According to its website (https://www.naeyc.org/about-us), NAEYC is the largest professional association in the field of early childhood education (ECE), comprising about 60,000 members (as of 2022) dedicated to the education and care of young children from birth to age 8.1 Considering that all of NAEYC’s position statements on DAP and related book publications proclaim developmental theory as the foundation on which DAP is built, it is imperative that we define the concept of development at the outset. Development may be defined generally as changes in a human being in different areas (e.g., physical, cognitive, socio-emotional, language) over one’s life span. Child development in terms of DAP may then be referred to as changes occurring in children during the early years from birth to age 8 (as designated by NAEYC). In its latest position statement reinforcing the definition of DAP, NAEYC (2020) operationalized it “as methods that promote each child’s optimal development and learning through a strengths-based, playbased approach to joyful, engaged learning” (p. 5). Accordingly, concepts such as intentional teaching, play-based learning, child-centered learning experiences, and joyful learning are quintessential characteristics of DAP. DAP is not a new concept, especially in the developmental science field. This point was acknowledged in NAEYC’s (2022) latest edition of the DAP book: “The concept of developmentally appropriate was not new, having been used by developmental psychologists for years about age-related and individual human variation” (p. xvii). Nonetheless, the DAP framework has been made especially popular during the last nearly four decades by the four iterations of its position statement and book. Since the very first publication of its position statement (NAEYC, 1986) and its subsequent DAP book (Bredekamp, 1987), NAEYC has revisited and updated its position statement (1996, 2009, 2020) and DAP book (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; NAEYC, 2022) once about every decade. In

54 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li the United States, the DAP framework appears to have quickly become an archetype of effective, intentional methods to promote optimal development and learning in young children. Accordingly, it has been serving as the gold standard for early childhood (EC) teacher education programs to implement, especially in the United States. A Review of the History of DAP: Conceptualization, Evolution, and Advancement With its intentionally well-crafted position statements and related book publications, the DAP framework has exerted tremendous influence on ECE in the United States and beyond. The DAP framework is so influential that many EC educators have regarded its book as the “bible” of the field. However, just as it focuses on child development, the DAP framework has also experienced its own development and growth over time. Figure 4.1 summarizes the significant evolution of the DAP framework as becoming more refined both conceptually and practically over time, reflecting a more advanced knowledge base and contextual changes. Likewise, each iteration of the position statement on DAP and its accompanying book reflects the knowledge and context at a particular point in time. For example, NAEYC (2020) underscored that “[e]ach edition [of the position statement on DAP] has reflected the context and research of its time, striving to correct common misinterpretations and to disseminate current understandings based on emerging science and professional knowledge” (p. 33). The 1980s was a pivotal era marked by some key education reforms in the United States. It started with the policy document, A Nation at Risk, authored by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983, detailing the failure of American schools to educate students for success and, thus, providing recommendations for educational improvement. In the wake of this watershed moment in the history of American education, the Figure 4.1 The timeline of the evolution of DAP. Source: (see NAEYC, 2022, p. xvii, for its own delineation and representation of the timeline). • Original DAP position statement adopted • First DAP book 1986 DAP book expanded 1987 Position statemet updated 1996 DAP book (revised edition) 1997 • Position statement updated • Third edition of DAP book 2009 Position statement updated 2020 Fourth edition of DAP book 2022

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 55 education system responded by increasing its emphasis on academic instruction. Notably, it created an education movement encouraging a “pushdown” curriculum focusing on formal, explicit academic content skills (e.g., numeracy, literacy) from elementary grades to kindergarten and even preschool programs. This pushdown curriculum had implications for the nature of operation in ECE (Miller & Almon, 2009) and was considered not developmentally appropriate for young children (e.g., Elkind, 1986, 1987; NAEYC, 1986). While the curriculum pushdown movement engendered concerns for educators, it also provided an impetus for action from the EC community. Leading the effort, NAEYC offered a fitting solution to counteract the pushdown curriculum force, guiding the EC field. The solution was the formulation of the DAP framework described in a position statement in 1986 (NAEYC, 1986) and in its first expanded version of the DAP book in 1987 (Bredekamp, 1987). These documents represented concerted efforts to address the increased inappropriate pedagogical practices and curriculum expectations for the growing number of preschoolers in EC settings. Advocating against the artificial approach of instituting the pushdown curriculum to accelerate young children’s learning progress, the DAP documents conveyed the message that teachers and parents should not force children to achieve what they were not developmentally ready for. Instead, a suggestion was to implement DAP by designing preschool environments and learning experiences around exploratory play-based activities (Bredekamp, 1987; NAEYC, 1986). In addition to counteracting the pushdown curriculum with the DAP framework, NAEYC addressed another necessity simultaneously, involving offering specific directions for seekers of program accreditation by delineating DAP criteria for a national voluntary program accreditation system launched in the 1980s (NAEYC, 1984a, 1984b). In its latest revision of the position statement on DAP, NAEYC (2020) described that although the term “developmentally appropriate” was permeated throughout the accreditation criteria, initial program visits demonstrated a wide range of interpretations of this term. Consequently, it strived to provide a common “language” for the EC field. For example, the DAP guidelines (NAEYC, 1986) asserted that academically driven expectations and the didactic method of teaching generally associated with the educational process in elementary grades were not developmentally appropriate for young children. Thus, they provided an affirming voice to educators struggling with the academically-oriented climate in their work with young children and served as a bulwark against the strong pushdown curriculum force. NAEYC’s opposing position on the pushdown curriculum and its resultant solution by innovating the DAP framework subsequently garnered fervent support from the EC community. For example, David Elkind (1986, 1987) cautioned the “miseducation” of preschool children across the United States, noting that whether in schools or homes, preschoolers were being

56 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li inappropriately provided with formalized academic instruction and inculcation meant for elementary school-age children. In his classic books, The Hurried Child (1981) and Miseducation: Preschoolers at Risk (1987), Elkind delivered a powerful censure on the pushdown curriculum and the like that forced children to “grow up” academically faster than they were ready. Furthermore, Elkind (1987) also underscored other deleterious consequences. For instance, due to being “miseducated,” young children could experience stress from academic pressure and little learning benefits. The original position statement on DAP (NAEYC, 1986) focused on countering the inappropriateness of the pushdown curriculum by delineating the DAP framework as a viable and vital solution for guiding EC educators in delivering high-quality EC experiences, which would be appropriate for young children’s development and learning. However, as an initial effort, the original statement on DAP targeted only educators of 4- and 5-year-olds (NAEYC, 1986). It was quickly expanded to include the entire spectrum of early years (birth through age 8) (NAEYC, 1986). In addition to guiding practice, both the original and expanded versions of the DAP framework were also meant to provide a common language within the EC field (NAEYC, 2020). Central to the original DAP framework were two core considerations: age-appropriateness (typical patterns of development in various areas for different age groups) and (2) individual-appropriateness (individual-specific patterns of development) (see Table 4.1). Accordingly, the initial DAP guidelines encouraged teachers to ensure that classroom expectations and curricula would flexibly match the children’s individual needs at their developmental levels rather than conform to rigid academic demands (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Shepard, 1989). In the context of the DAP framework, Teacher-directed experiences were viewed as counterproductive to young children’s learning. In contrast, child-initiated/child-directed activities were considered optimal because they corresponded to children’s intrinsic motivation to learn and make sense of their environment and the world in which they live (Bredekamp, 1987; Elkind, 1987). Reflecting this viewpoint, not surprisingly, the original DAP book (Bredekamp, 1987) provided examples that favored child-directed learning as the “correct” way of educating young children. Thus, the child-centeredness approach became a hallmark of the DAP framework. As cited by Dickinson (2002), one suggestion for practice in the 1987 version of the DAP book was that “[t]he correct way to teach young children is not to lecture or verbally instruct them. Teachers of young children are more like guides or facilitators” (p. 52). This example and the like appeared to convey a singular universal standard of what would be considered DAP. Sally Lubeck (1998), one of the avid critics of the DAP framework, questioned in her article, “Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone?” Lubeck noted that DAP guidelines assumed homogeneity in everyone, suggesting that they were applicable more or less to everyone and, thus, were used as the standards for judging the quality of educators’ practices.

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 57 In this case, heterogeneity or diversity is neglected in this discourse; for instance, cultural and individual differences of children were not considered when judging the appropriateness of a teaching practice. It was not until a decade later, with the release of the revised edition (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), that this “correctness” mentality began to shift to reflect an increased awareness of diversity and the need to provide high-quality early learning experiences to children from different backgrounds. Considering the complexity and variability in how young children develop and learn, a salient hallmark of the revised edition was the paradigm shift “from either/or to both/and thinking in early childhood practice” (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. 23). While this shift represented an effort to strike a balance between teacher-directedness and child-centeredness in practice, it retained many of the same features as the original version. For instance, both the original (Bredekamp, 1987) and the revised version (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) of the DAP book continued to list the normative developmental milestones for children and dichotomized practices into either “appropriate” or “inappropriate,” thereby obfuscating the dynamic complexity of teachers’ decision-making and teaching practices as well as the heterogeneity of children’s development and learning. Another decade later since the revised DAP publication, came the third edition of the DAP book (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009) with a comparatively stronger emphasis on the complex mosaic of diversity among young children and their families, including children from all culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, English language learners, and learners with special needs. It appeared that the conceptualization of DAP with each revised edition became increasingly more sensitive and appropriate at addressing heterogeneity in child development and learning as well as diversity in children’s background characteristics. The fourth and latest revision of the DAP book represents the most open-minded conceptualization of the DAP framework by focusing more extensively on some key features, such as the importance of context and both/and thinking in implementing DAP. Although well-meaning in translating developmental theory and research into practice for educators to follow, the first three editions of the DAP book grouped examples of practices into two contrasting categories, as summarized in Table 4.1. Notably, the original DAP book (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) provided examples of classroom practices considered appropriate or inappropriate for typically developing young children. The revised version of DAP (Bredekamp, 1987) continued to offer contrasting examples of DAP and developmentally inappropriate practice (DIP) with young children, seemingly demarcating between what EC educators should do (DAP) and what they should not do (DIP). This approach appeared to render a prescription of pedagogical practice for EC educators. Specifically, in the first two editions of the DAP book, examples of “Appropriate Practices” and “Inappropriate Practices” for each age group were juxtaposed in two table columns. The third edition of the DAP book (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009) similarly

Table 4.1 Comparisons across the four editions of the DAP books DAP First Edition (1986) Edited by Bredekamp Expanded Edition (1987) Edited by Bredekamp Revised Edition (1997) Edited by Bredekamp and Copple Third Edition (2009) Edited by Copple and Bredekamp Fourth Edition (2022) by NAEYC Contributed by various authors Title Developmentally Appropriate Practice Developmentally Appropriate Practice Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs: Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8 Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs: Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8 Content Coverage Part 1: “NAEYC Position statement on DAP” (adopted in 1986) Part 2 including development during the first 3 years of life, examples of appropriate practice for infants and toddlers, a chart of developmental milestones of children from birth to age 3 Part 3 describes appropriate and inappropriate practices for infants and toddlers Expanded version of the first edition: Added sections on DAPs for 3-year-olds and children in the primary grades Part I: “NAEYC Position Statement: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8” (Adopted in 1996) Part 2: “Developmentally Appropriate Practice: The Early Childhood Teacher as Decisionmaker” Part 3: “Developmentally Appropriate Practice for Infants and Toddlers” Subsections including: • “Developmental Milestones of Children from Birthtoage3”“NAEYC Position Statement” (adopted in 2009) Part 1: “NAEYC Position Statement” Part 2: “The Infant and Toddler Years” including “Development in the First Three Years of Life” and “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in the Infant and Toddler Years-Ages 0–3: Examples to Consider” Part 3: “The Preschool Years” including “Developmentally Appropriate Practice “NAEYC Position” Statement (adopted in 2020) Part 1: “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Context” including five chapters: 1. “Intentional Teaching: Complex Decision-Making and the Core Considerations” 2. “The Principles in Practice: Understanding Child Development and Learning in Context” 3. “Context Matters: Reframing Teaching in Early Childhood Education” 4“TeachingContentinEarlyChildhood

Part 4 provides NAEYC’s position statement on DAP in programs for 4- and 5-year-olds Birth to age 3 • “Examples of Appropriate and Inappropriate Practices for Infants” • “Examples of Appropriate and Inappropriate Practices for Toddlers” Part 4: “Developmentally Appropriate Practice for 3-through 5-Year-Olds” Subsections including: • “Development and Learning in Children Age 3 through 5” • “Examples of Appropriate and Inappropriate Practices for 3-through 5-year-Olds” Part 5: “Developmentally Appropriate Practice for 5-through 8-Year-Olds in the Primary Grades” Subsections including: • “Development and Learning in Primary-Age Children” • “Examples of Appropriate and Inappropriate Practices for 6- through 8-year-Olds” in the Preschool Years – Ages 3-5: An Overview” and “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in the Preschool Years – Ages 3–5: Examples to Consider” Part 4: “The Kindergarten Year” including “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in the Kindergarten Year – Ages 5–6: An Overview” and “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in the Kindergarten Year – Ages 5–6: Examples to Consider” Part 5: “The Primary Grades” including “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in the Primary Grades – Ages 6–8: An Overview” and “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in the Primary Grades – Ages 6–8: Examples to Consider” “Frequently Asked Questions about Developmentally Appropriate Practice” 4. Teaching Content in Early Childhood Education” 5. The Power of Playful Learning in the Early Childhood Setting” Part 2: “Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Action” 6. “Creating a Caring, Equitable Community of Learners” 7. “Engaging in Reciprocal Partnerships with Families and Fostering Community Connections” 8. “Observing, Documenting, and Assessing Children’s Development and Learning” 9. “Teaching to enhance Each Child’s Development and Learning” 10. “Planning and Implementing an Engaging Curriculum to Achieve Meaningful Goals” 11. “Demonstrating Professionalism as an Early Childhood Educator”

Framing and reframing of the term “best practices” The term “best practice” was used The term “best practice” was used “Moving from either/or to both/and thinking in early childhood practice” The term “best practice” was used “Moving from either/or to both/and thinking in early childhood practice” The term “best practice” was used “Moving from either/or to both/and thinking in early childhood practice” The term “best Practice” was NOT used and was reframed Core considerations • Commonality: Age-appropriateness • Individuality: Individual-appropriateness • Commonality: Age-appropriateness • Individuality: Individual- appropriateness • Commonality: Age-appropriateness • Individuality: Individual-appropriateness • Context: Contextual (socially and culturally)-appropriateness • Commonality: Age-appropriateness • Individuality: Individual-appropriateness • Context: Contextual (socially and culturally)-appropriateness • Commonality: Age-appropriateness • Individuality: Individual-appropriateness • Context: Contextual (socially and culturally)-appropriateness Framing of practices into two contrasting categories • “Appropriate Practices” • “Inappropriate Practices” • “Appropriate Practices” • “Inappropriate Practices” • “Appropriate Practices” • “Inappropriate Practices” • “Developmentally appropriate” • “In contrast” • “Examples of Developmentally Appropriate Practices” • “Examples of Practices to Avoid”

60 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li contained two columns of practical examples for each age group, with the headings of “Developmentally Appropriate” and “In Contrast,” denoting contrastive practices. Similarly, in the fourth edition of the DAP book (NAEYC, 2022), a table was divided into two columns juxtaposing “Examples of Developmentally Appropriate Practices” and “Examples of Practices to Avoid” for each age group. However, unlike the previous three editions that explicitly dichotomized practices into two types as a means of contrast, this most recent one encourages educators to understand what practices are considered developmentally appropriate and what practices to avoid in context. Building on the emphasis on context as an important factor in understanding developmental appropriateness in practice as highlighted in the latest edition of the DAP book, we further underscore cross-cultural differences as such a critical context. For instance, there are ECE practices judged appropriate in one culture but inappropriate in another culture. Therefore, we caution that the appropriateness of ECE practices must be culturally and contextually defined and measured. The Developmental Theory Undergirding DAP The DAP framework is recognized as being grounded in developmental theory, especially reflecting the work of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. Although Piaget and Vygotsky converged on the fact that they were both regarded as constructivists and their theories were grounded in the tradition of constructivism, they diverged in their views on the relationship between development and learning (see Chapter 3, for a detailed comparison). Notably, Piaget asserted development as a necessary condition that precedes learning, whereas Vygotsky affirmed the contrary: social learning precedes development. Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s different perspectives are also reflected in their varying interpretations of knowledge construction. Piaget (1971a) believed that knowledge is constructed through individual experiences and that children actively construct knowledge and the reality of the world by interacting with their environment. Accordingly, the role of the teachers is to support the children’s active engagement in learning by structuring the classroom environment and designing active learning experiences (e.g., child-centered, hands-on, inquiry-based) that meet each child’s stage of development and facilitate his or her independent learning process without overt instruction. In contrast, Vygotsky (1934/1986) asserted that knowledge is constructed through social interactions with others, a process through which development and learning are facilitated. Accordingly, Vygotsky (1978) recognized the vital role of teachers and advocated teacher scaffolded instruction within the zone of proximal development (ZPD), defined as the optimal level of performance between what a child can achieve independently and what he or she can potentially achieve with assistance. Teacher scaffolding is critical because it provides an impetus for optimizing children’s development at a higher level that may be impossible by simply

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 61 waiting for such development to unfold at its own pace, as believed by Piaget. The latest iteration of DAP (NAEYC, 2020, 2022) shows vestiges of the developmental theories of both Piaget and Vygotsky. For instance, it promotes the regularity of learning as involving child-initiated activities and teacher scaffolding. Criticisms of the Earlier Editions of the DAP Framework When the concept of DAP was debuted in NAECYC’s initial position statement in 1986 and its subsequent expanded book publication in 1987 (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), the DAP framework made quite a splash in the EC community as a welcome alternative to the pushdown curriculum and, relatedly the academic-driven, direct instructional climate. Reflecting this paradigm shift, the DAP framework emphasizes the congruence between the curriculum and the children because curricular instruction that exceeds the child’s current developmental level is understood as leading to minimal gains, if any; and worse, decreasing learning engagement and motivation while increasing stress and creating undue emotional burdens on the child (Bredekamp, 1987; Elkind, 1987). Despite its timely and significant contributions to the EC field, the original DAP framework also made waves in the research/academic community by prompting scholars’ intense scrutiny and critical analysis. For example, scholars (e.g., Jipson, 1991; Lubeck, 1998; Mallory & New, 1994a; Walsh, 1991) began to critique the different aspects of the DAP framework. The major criticisms of the original position statement may be grouped into four areas: (1) concerns about favoring Piaget’s developmental theory and lacking other theoretical perspectives, (2) the imposition of a universality model of child development, (3) the incongruence between DAP and expectations of minority groups, and (4) the lack of attention on context. These criticisms concern mostly the original position statement and DAP book, some of which may still be relevant to the revised and the third iteration. Understandably, the first attempt of anything represents a trial and error learning curve, with each subsequent attempt getting better and better. Thus, the first edition of the DAP book receiving the most criticism is perhaps not surprising. In fact, subsequent editions did “listen to” and appropriately addressed some criticisms. Currently, to our knowledge, there have not been published criticisms of the fourth edition of the DAP book. It may be because it has only debuted for less than a year as of October 2022. More importantly, it may also be because it has addressed previously raised criticisms to represent the most advanced and refined version, as we shall discuss later in this chapter. We must revisit criticisms of earlier iterations of the DAP position statement for two reasons. First, much of the national research (e.g., Charlesworth et al., 1991; 1993; Jones & Gullo, 1999; McMullen, 1999; Mitchell & Hegde, 2007; Vartuli, 1999) has built on the original conceptualization of DAP, so has much of the international research (e.g., Haroun & Weshah, 2009;

62 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li Hegde & Cassidy, 2009; Hoot et al., 1996). Second, these earlier criticisms provide a ground on which we analyze the current edition of the DAP book (NAEYC, 2022) to assess what refinements it might have made and how. The Emphasis on Piaget’s Theory as the Theoretical Foundation NAEYC (1986, Bredekamp, 1987) originally proclaimed that the DAP framework was informed by developmental theory. However, it was premised largely and narrowly on Piaget’s constructivist understanding of child development and learning normed on Western, White, and middle-class children (Lubeck, 1996; O’Brien, 1993). Accordingly, the original version of DAP vehemently advocated child-directed learning and informal practices as the most developmentally appropriate while paying little attention to structured learning and formal instruction as they were considered developmentally inappropriate (e.g., Fowell & Lawton, 1992; Jipson, 1991; Lubeck, 1998; Walsh, 1991). By not considering alternatives or contradictory theoretical perspectives, the developmental theory derived from Piaget’s ideas cannot be proven the most appropriate for understanding child development to guide practice. To reconcile favoritism toward Piaget’s developmental theory and, relatedly, the child-centered pedagogical approach highlighted in the original position statement on DAP, the revised position statement (NAEYC, 1986) reflected ideas from both Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s constructivist perspectives. Importantly, it made an intentional attempt to shift away from the “either/or” paradigm as characterized in the original position statement (NAEYC, 1986) to embrace the “both/and” conceptualization in practice. An example is that “[c]hildren construct their understanding of concepts, and they benefit from instruction by more competent peers and adults” (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. 23). This example acknowledges the benefits of child-centered and teacher-directed/scaffolded learning experiences. The DAP’s both/and approach is also supported by other scholars. For example, Epstein (2014) asserted that instructional decisions should be made according to specific learning goals so that teachers intentionally engage children in child-centered experiences to teach certain skills and adult-guided/directed activities to potentially benefit children’s learning of a particular content more effectively. Furthermore, this balanced approach to instructional decisions and practices afford greater flexibility and freedom to choose from an expansive toolbox of what they may consider most effective in meeting their children’s learning needs to achieve particular goals in a lesson. The both/and approach to teachers’ decision-making has been advocated in the last three editions of the DAP book (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; NAEYC, 2022). This idea is reflected even more strongly in the latest edition of the DAP book (NAEYC, 2022), highlighting that teacher-directed learning activities can also be

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 63 developmentally appropriate in certain contexts, such as learning specific content concepts that cannot be accomplished by children on their own (NAEYC, 2022). Examples of the both/and approach in the latest DAP framework (NAEYC, 2022) include, “Children benefit both from engaging in self-initiated, spontaneous play and from teacher-planned and structured activities, projects, and experiences” and “Children benefit both from engaging in self-initiated, spontaneous play and from teacher-planned and structured activities, projects, and experiences” (p. 8). This both/and perspective legitimates teacher-directed instruction as holding a particular place in certain learning situations as developmentally appropriate for young children. The Imposition of a Universal Model of Child Development Scholars (e.g., Charlesworth, 1998; Fowell & Lawton, 1992; Jipson, 1991, Kessler, 1991; Lubeck, 1996) were concerned about the original DAP framework as imposing a universal model of child development while neglecting cultural perspectives and developmental variations. Lubeck (1996) debated that because DAP guidelines impressed on others as the only “correct” way of interpreting and doing things, they revealed the problematic nature of “a universal practice premised on a universal theory of development” (p. 147). Because teaching is not as simple as seeking the correct answers from the students but rather is highly contextualized and individualized, the inherent complexity associated with teaching attests to the idea that a theory or a set of general principles is just not likely to be  universally applicable (Goffin, 1996; Katz, 1996; Lubeck, 1996). Furthermore, Carta et al. (1991) found that the DAP guidelines restricted alternatives and options for teaching children with disabilities and, thus, they were important but insufficient to inform efforts in planning, delivering, and evaluating EC special education services for these children. These findings highlight the complexity embedded within each teaching situation and the diversity of children’s characteristics as countering the universalization of child development implied by the original conceptualization of the DAP framework. The universal model is viewed as suggesting that all possibilities of child learning and teaching are to be measured against some normative, developmental categories (i.e., appropriate vs. inappropriate) and that there is a seemingly objectivist, “codified body of knowledge” by which EC professionals should abide and from which any deviation would be considered inappropriate (Lubeck, 1998, p. 288). Scholars (e.g., Delpit, 1988; Lubeck, 1998) contended that this very insistent institutionalization of one correct way of doing things is dangerous because it seeks to “silence” those with different points of view and, thus, creates a hierarchical hegemony structure where the presumably more knowledgeable individuals have the power to convey knowledge to the rest (Lubeck, 1998). Arguing against passing on

64 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li uniform developmental standards to teacher candidates in teacher education, Lubeck (1996) advocated instead for “a dialogic model of teaching and teacher education – calls attention to the “inherently polysemous” nature of human existence. There are many ways of understanding how children develop and learn, many ways to teach, and a range of curricular options” (p. 147). This pluralistic orientation also aligns with the Reggio Emilia approach that encourages children’s various representations of their understanding (see Chapter 8). The universal model is consistent with modernist assumptions about scientific knowledge being objective, absolute, and applicable across all cultures. By implication, the application of Piaget’s developmental theory aligns with a universal worldview. Specifically, Piaget’s theory suggests that children go through some homogeneous, predictable sequences or stages of developmental change during different periods of their lives. Premised on this universal model, it is assumed that there is a clear developmental trajectory, facilitated by “universally” appropriate standards of practice. Hence, the original DAP guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987) dichotomized practices into two opposites: DAP (e.g., child-centered learning activities) as reflecting Piaget’s developmental theory and DIP (e.g., teacher-directed learning activities) as reflecting a behavioral theory. However, this dualism of practices leaves no room for alternatives (Fowell & Lawton, 1993; Lubeck, 1996). In theory, it seems easy to dichotomize practices as either developmentally appropriate or developmentally inappropriate. However, in practice, teaching practices do not always reflect just one type but rather demonstrate a continuum of teaching practices or multiple types of practices, an awareness that is reflected in the revised DAP framework (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Furthermore, the imposed universality of child development does not provide an understanding of the wide variation of complexities and possibilities involved. For example, judging the development of certain children who do not meet the theoretically established universal norms of child development can lead educators to view these children’s development as being “abnormal” or underperformed, suggesting a deficit perspective. However, it is more productive and constructive to view the sole focus on Piaget’s developmental theory as insufficient in explaining children’s development. We believe that instead of fitting the children into a pre-established mold, we ought to find different appropriate molds to fit the children’s strengths and needs, especially by attending to the contexts within which they unfold and evolve developmentally. Thus, an alternative to the modernist perspective is the postmodernist one that rejects the universality of knowledge and supports the socioculturally and contextually situated knowledge construction (Lubeck, 1996). We also believe that the postmodernist perspective is the most vital solution to understanding that there are not just one type but multiple types of DAPs, thereby calling for a pluralistic approach to truth-seeking and construction.

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 65 The Incongruence between DAP and Expectations of Minority Groups In the United States, the original DAP framework was criticized for representing only “White, middle-class” ideologies of care and education, which were found incompatible with the sociocultural and historical contexts as well as socialization goals and academic expectations of children and their families from racial/ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g., Delpit, 1988; Jipson, 1991; Lubeck, 1996; 1998; Sanders et al., 2007). Relatedly, this criticism also reflected the concern about the inequity of power and privilege. Notably, the original DAP framework appeared to benefit only those familiar with the cultural knowledge coded with the mainstream (power and privilege) practices but not those outside the mainstream (e.g., Delpit, 1988; Mallory & New, 1994a; O’Brien, 1993, 2000). In addition, O’Brien (1993, 2000) argued that the DAP framework would benefit typically developing children from socioeconomically advantaged, Anglo family backgrounds the most because their experiences tended to align well with child-centered, play-based, and inquiry-oriented learning. While children from mainstream backgrounds are privileged with child-centered, autonomous skills, those who are outside the dominant culture (e.g., children from racial/ethnic, minority, and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds) may not have the requisite learning and developmental competence to fully reap the benefits from DAP in action (O’Brien, 1993, 2000). Nonetheless, empirical evidence on the impact of DAP guidelines on the learning of racial/ethnic minority and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged children in the United States is mixed, with some showing beneficial effects (e.g., Bryant et al., 1994; Huffman & Speer, 2000), while others demonstrating no such an advantage (e.g., Van Horn & Ramey, 2003; Van Horn et al., 2012). The latter finding seems to add support to the belief that racial/ethnic minority children may benefit from a qualitatively different kind of learning experience, such as the opportunity to acquire academic skills (Delpit, 1988) to slowly gain access to mainstream education (e.g., Mallory & New, 1994a; O’Brien, 1993, 2000). Similar findings were also reported in developing countries (Rao et al., 2012). Parents and educators of children from diverse backgrounds also tend to believe that an academic-oriented education is what these children need to be better positioned for success in the mainstream school system and later in society (Delpit, 1988; Mallory & New, 1994a; 1994b). Thus, it is not surprising that empirical evidence attests that parents of racial/ethnic minority children are likely to choose EC programs designed to be academically driven with a more didactic, teacher-directed model of instruction in which literacy and numeracy skills needed for success in formal schooling are taught (e.g., Fuller et al., 1996a; 1996b). Unfortunately, this reality does not match the DAP discourse in which the learning environment promotes primarily child-centered and play-based experiences. However, a balanced approach combining child-centered and teacher-directed instruction may be an entry point toward bridging DAP in action with academic instruction for some

66 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li racial/ethnic minority children. For example, in their study of six African American directors of subsidized child care centers serving racial/ethnic minority children from low-income backgrounds in California, the United States, Sanders et al. (2007) found that these directors infused child-centered activities with didactic instruction as culturally and developmentally responsive practices to accommodate these children’s needs. Similar findings were also reported in the studies conducted in Chinese societies (Chen et  al., 2017; Li et al., 2012). Taken together, two important implications may be of particular relevance. First, understanding and incorporating knowledge of contextual factors affecting children’s development and learning would be considered DAP, as strongly emphasized in the fourth edition of the DAP book. Second, as not all children are the same, the one-size-fits-all approach to nurturing their development and learning is inappropriate. In this connection, an appropriate solution to working with children from diverse backgrounds would be to listen to their “voices” and attend to their needs instead of levying on them a set of unrealistic and unrelatable dominant “White, middleclass-normed” standards to follow. It is conceivable that children will continue to struggle developmentally if their needs are not addressed in contextually appropriate ways. The Lack of Attention to Context Another criticism of the original DAP framework concerns the lack of attention to the context in which child development and learning occur. For example, Lubeck (1996) was concerned that by promoting individual development based on Piaget’s theory, DAP appeared to foster development in isolation as if the child was an “isolated being” (p. 152). However, it was not until the revised version (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) that Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory appeared salient in addition to Piaget’s developmental theory. In particular, Vygotsky’s theory was leveraged to help explain how children’s development and learning unfold in the context of social interactions with adults and peers. It was also only in the revised iteration that contextual appropriateness was included as a third core consideration of the DAP framework. Thus, the revised and subsequent versions of the position statement on DAP and the DAP book reflect the developmental theory of both Piaget and Vygotsky. It has been recognized that different contextual characteristics (e.g., the specific characteristics of the students, the kind of school setting) require different kinds of DAP in action (e.g., Goldstein, 2008). The professional context is complex with many contours, and thus DAP, in terms of curricular and instructional decisions, should be made in the context of these complexities. For instance, a salient complexity in the teaching situation is the sociopolitical climate. Goldstein (2008) advocated that sociopolitical factors, which were not part of the DAP framework, should be reviewed as an aspect of culturally appropriate practices. Goldstein cited Bronfenbrenner’s

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 67 socioecological model as suggesting that “children’s learning and development are influenced not only by their specific sociocultural milieus but also by the larger sociopolitical macrosystem in which those sociocultural milieus are embedded” (p. 255). Goldstein also viewed Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning and development as acknowledging the powerful influences of the cultural and historical milieus and the sociopolitical context in which children live and are socialized. In addition, Goldstein (2008) believed that the sociopolitical appropriateness of academic content and skills (e.g., the former No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in the United States) may be assimilated into the existing child-centered learning experiences as a response to the new educational mandates by ways, such as supplementing lessons and activities presented in mandated curriculum content with child-centered lessons and learning activities (e.g., hands-on, play-based) without a complete overhaul of wellgrounded classroom practices. Accordingly, Goldstein (2008) proposed a “broadening” conceptualization of culturally appropriate practices by considering the influences of both sociopolitical and sociocultural factors. For instance, teachers should no longer feel conflicted between their tendency to apply DAP guidelines and their obligation to meet new curricular, instructional, and accountability expectations when meeting the academic demands imposed by an education policy. It may be that certain academic skills are considered culturally appropriate but may not be considered developmentally appropriate without understanding the context in which they occur. This scenario calls for teachers to be adaptive. As the ability to resolve contradictions emerging from teaching situations is a key feature of the DAP framework (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), it would be productive for those teachers in the United States working in the DAP space to resolve teaching demands by leveraging their professional knowledge to inform their decision-making in the context of ever-evolving education reform policies, such as the Common Core standards, and the current Every Student Succeeds Act. What’s New and Different about the Latest Iteration of DAP Now that we have examined the criticisms concerning the previous editions (especially the original one) of the DAP book, in this section, we discuss whether and how the latest edition might have addressed some, if not all, of these criticisms. We also examine what is new and different about this fourth and latest iteration of the DAP book. While the publication of this, perhaps highly anticipated, version of the DAP book might have generated excitement in the field of ECE in the United States and even beyond, it also naturally prompts questions. For example, what is new and different about this iteration? How does it expand upon our current knowledge of child development and learning and relatedly pedagogical practices? Whether and how does it address the cultural and contextual considerations raised by criticisms of previous editions? These questions and the like are addressed in the newest publication of DAP.

68 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li At the outset, NAEYC (2022) made clear that unlike the previous editions of DAP written and edited principally by NAEYC staff, this newest edition represents a concerted effort to muster intellectual strengths from both the NAEYC staff and many EC educators with various domains of expertise and experiences to serve in a variety of capacities, such as writers and reviewers. In terms of content, as described by NAEYC (2022), the current DAP book represents both “continuity and change” in the conceptualization of the DAP framework in the context of long-standing core values and advanced professional knowledge. Concerning continuity, just like its previous versions on DAP, the latest position statement (2020) also emphasizes DAP as reflecting three essentials: (1) core considerations that guide the educators’ decision-making, (2) principles of child development and learning that inform practice, and (3) specific guidelines for professional practice. However, different from its predecessorial editions, the latest iteration has further refined these three aspects to reflect its current professional knowledge and contextual changes and to apply a more “fluid” approach to its theoretical conceptualization and practical guidance, as discussed later. Another point of continuity is related specifically to the core considerations of DAP. As illustrated in a figure by NAEYC (2022), the framework for DAP focuses on the educators’ intentional decision-making in supporting children’s optimal development and learning by incorporating the three core considerations: (1) age-appropriateness based on knowledge of child development in terms of typical patterns of behaviors and growth that characterize specific age groups (commonality), (2) individual-appropriateness premised on knowledge about the unique developmental profile (e.g., specific learning strengths, interests, needs) of each child (individuality), and (3) context-appropriateness founded on knowledge about the social, cultural, linguistic, and historical contexts in which children, families, and teachers live and are socialized (context). However, it is worth noting that, as summarized in Table 4.1, at the same time, age-appropriateness and individual-appropriateness have served as two core considerations of the DAP framework since the original position statement (NAEYC, 1986), and context-appropriateness was only added to the revised position statement a decade later (NAEYC, 1996). Moreover, the emphasis on the context at the time is believed to have encouraged EC educators to rethink and retool their practices by considering diversity (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, language) that is characteristic of a multicultural society (Mallory & New, 1994a; Powell, 1994). Nearly four decades later, the current NAEYC’s (2020) position statement on DAP and, relatedly, the fourth iteration of the DAP book (NAEYC, 2022) demonstrate an even greater effort to underscore the importance of understanding the social and cultural contexts affecting children’s development and learning. NAEYC (2022) urged educators to attend to the context (e.g., social, cultural, community, family) in which young children learn and thrive to carter support to these children’s needs accordingly, including

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 69 incorporating knowledge of the diverse cultural and linguistic assets that children bring from the home to the classroom. Another pivotal change in the fourth edition of the DAP book is that, for the first time, NAEYC (2020) also stressed the need to consider the social and cultural contexts of educators and EC settings in addition to those of children, an approach that “reflects an equity lens”: (1) “The principles of child development and learning acknowledge the critical role of social and cultural contexts and the fact that there is greater variation among the ‘universals’ of development than previously recognized” (p. 34). (2) “Understanding of the social and cultural contexts applies not only to children but also to educators and the program setting” (p. 34). Furthermore, in explaining why context is more critical to consider than ever in practice, Friedman et al. (2022) situated this importance within the changing nature of the sociodemographic dynamics in EC settings in the United States in this way: The United States has become more diverse racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically, and so too have the children from birth through age 8 attending early learning programs. Children in these programs come from diverse backgrounds, speak multiple languages, have a variety of abilities and identified disabilities, and have varying experiences impacted by their social identities (race, ethnicity, language, gender, class, ability, family composition, and economic status, among others)… educators need to seek to understand the implications of these contexts by continuously learning from families and communities and becoming aware of and countering their own and larger societal biases that may undermine children’s positive development and well-being. (p. 49) Consistent with its adoption of an “equity” lens, in addition to increasing emphasis on the core consideration of context, NAEYC (2020, 2022) made other conceptual changes, including the following: • A paradigm shift in viewing context from a deficit to a strengths model. Acknowledging that “[i]n the past, however, differences in social and cultural contexts were identified as deficits and gaps rather than assets or strengths to be built upon” (p. 34), NAEYC (2020) advocates treating social and cultural differences as assets or strengths to build on rather than as liabilities or deficits to address. • A focus on identifying and raising awareness of the existence of potentially implicit biases and their related implications for thought and behavior on which educators may reflect, understand, and address.

70 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li • A revision of child development and learning principles by incorporating new research understanding and contextual features affecting development. A paradigm shift from focusing on “best practice” to embracing practices as the most effective if they reflect the core considerations, principles, and guidelines of DAP. Specifically, NAEYC (2022) highlighted that “[o]ne of the key decisions made during the revision of the position statement was to purposefully not use the term best practice” (xix). NAEYC (2022) further qualified that [t]his reframing does not mean there is no clarity around appropriate practices; clear guidelines for determining the most appropriate practice is reflected in the principles, the guidelines, and the core considerations outlined in the position statement on developmentally appropriate practice. (p. xx) Furthermore, this reframing also addresses scholars’ skepticism concerning the idea of best practice. For instance, Goldstein (2008) asserted that there was no singular “best” curriculum approach or instructional practice that would be considered developmentally appropriate for all children. NAEYC (2020) further explained that its intention for eliminating the term “best practice” from its DAP lexicon was to avert potentially equating the mainstream culture’s perspectives as “best” practice and espousing biased assumptions: This reframing reflects the concern that, especially when applied to specific practices, “best” has often been used in the United States to reflect the dominant culture’s assumptions. The dominant culture within the U.S. has historically and generally speaking been that of white, middle-class, heterosexual, Protestant people of northern European descent. Practices based on specific cultural assumptions without sufficient consideration of the wide variation in individual, social, and cultural contexts can create an inherent bias. (p. 34) Another point of change in the fourth edition of the DAP book (NAEYC, 2022) involves re-conceptualizing child development to reflect new research and consideration of the social and cultural milieus in which development occurs. For example, NAEYC (2020, 2022) revised its long-standing premise of child development on Piaget’s stage theory. Piaget (1971b) believed that children develop cognitively in an orderly and linear progression from one stage to the next. Instead of following Piaget’s theory of stage-based development, the newest DAP guidelines adopt the metaphor of “waves” to describe development in terms of fluidity rather than rigidity and of a dynamic rather than a straightforward process. Specifically, NAEYC (2020) elucidated,

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 71 Development and learning also occur at varying rates from child to child and uneven rates across different areas for each child. Children’s demonstrated abilities and skills are often fluid and vary from day to day based on individual or contextual factors. For example, because children are still developing the ability to direct their attention, a distraction in the environment may result in a child completing a puzzle one day but not the next. (p. 10) NAEYC’s more expansive notion of child development in terms of waves represents a departure from the rigidity of the stage theory proposed by Piaget. It may also be viewed as demonstrating NAEYC’s open-mindedness toward possibilities. The possibilities of child development include (1) commonality (developmental waves overlapping with each other), (2) individuality (development and learning moving at their various rates across children and domains within the same child), and (3) context (development being changeable from day to day depending on the context, progressing or regressing beyond the previously assumed rigid boundaries) (NAEYC, 2022). In this newest edition of the DAP book (NAEYC, 2022), another welcome addition to the developmental theory on which DAP is built is the particular mentioning of Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) bioecological model (also referred to as the ecological systems theory) and Vygotsky’s ZPD.2 This change highlights the complex and dynamic influences on child development and learning. However, just like in the previous editions of DAP, an extensive discussion of these relevant theories was not evident in this latest DAP publication. Instead, the theoretical foundation appears to be permeated, but in a cursory manner, throughout the latest DAP position statement (NAEYC, 2020) and book (NAEYC, 2022). Thus, it makes the link between developmental theory and DAP less palpable and the ways in which they weave together open to interpretation. Conclusion Although the NAEYC’s newest version of the position statement (2020) and DAP book (2022) have already articulated a wealth of knowledge drawn from developmental theory and research to inform professional practice, a lot has yet to be learned and incorporated. As no framework is perfect and to everyone’s liking, criticisms seem inevitable, especially given that it is impossible to meet all expectations of individuals with diverse philosophical and pedagogical worldviews. However, what is needed now is continuity in building a more expansive knowledge base by welcoming new perspectives from an advanced body of child development knowledge and empirical studies on the revised DAP framework. Just as the field continues to generate new insights, DAP may be considered a “living breathing document” that will continue to evolve and grow over

72 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li time. Thus, if history is of any indication, it is reasonable to expect that the current DAP position statement and book will continue to be refined, updated, and revised in the future, just like its predecessor iterations. Moreover, given NAEYC’s increasingly open-minded approach to engage the ECE field as expressed in its latest edition of the DAP position statement (2020) and book (2022), it is also reasonable to expect that NAEYC will continue to seek out and value diverse perspectives to bring about new insights and possibilities to create a legacy of “equitable” teaching and learning experiences all within the context of the DAP framework and a “caring community” of EC educators working directly or indirectly to positively impact young children’s development and learning, and most of all, their lives. Notes 1 Like the United States, some countries (e.g., Australia, as discussed in Cheeseman & Torr, 2009) also designate the early childhood years as covering birth to age 8. However, this age range designation is not universal. In other societies, such as China (Zhu, 2009) and Hong Kong (Chen et al., 2017), early childhood years are interpreted as reaching only age 6. 2 Since no citation was provided in the 2022 DAP book, it is unclear where the information was derived from. References Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. NAEYC. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (rev. ed.). NAEYC. Bredekamp, S., & Shepard, L. (1989). How best to protect children from inappropriate school expectations, practices, and policies. Young Children, 44(3), 14–24. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. SAGE. Bryant, D. M., Burchinal, M., Lau, L. B., & Sparling, J. J. (1994). Family and classroom correlates of Head Start children’s developmental outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(3–4), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885- 2006(94)90011-6 Carta, J. J., Schwartz, I. S., Atwater, J. B., & McConnell, S. R. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: Appraising its usefulness for young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/027112149101100104 Charlesworth, R. (1998). Developmentally appropriate practice is for everyone. Childhood Education, 74(5), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056. 1998.10521951 Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., & Hernandez, S. (1991). Preschool teachers’ beliefs and practices. Early Child Development and Care, 70(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443910700103 Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Thomasson, R. H., Mosley, J., & Fleege, P. O. (1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten teachers’ beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80067-5

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 73 Cheeseman, S., & Torr, J. (2009). From ideology to productivity: Reforming early childhood education and care in Australia. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 3(1), 61–74. Chen, J. J., Li, H., & Wang, J. (2017). Implementing the Project Approach: A case study of hybrid pedagogy in a Hong Kong kindergarten. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543. 2017.1309479 Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). National Association for the Education of Young Children. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–299. https://doi. org/10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4 Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Shifting images of developmentally appropriate practice as seen through different lenses. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 26–32. http://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X031001026 Elkind, D. (1981). The hurried child. Addison-Wesley. Elkind, D. (1986). Formal education and ECE: An essential difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(9), 636. Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk. Alfred a Knopf Incorporated. Epstein, A. S. (2014). The intentional teacher: Choosing the best strategies for young children’s learning (rev. ed.). National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Fowell, N., & Lawton, J. T. (1992). An alternative view of appropriate practice in ECE. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0885-2006(92)90019-U Fowell, N., & Lawton, J. T. (1993). Beyond polar descriptions of developmentally appropriate practice: A reply to Bredekamp. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(1), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80102-4 Fuller, B., Holloway, S., & Liang, X. (1996a). Family selection of child-care centers: The influences of household support, ethnicity, and parental practices. Child Development, 67(6), 3320–3337. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131781 Fuller, B., Holloway, S., Rambaud, M., & Eggers-Pierola, C. (1996b). How do mothers choose child care? Alternative cultural models in poor neighborhoods. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112800 Goffin, S. (1996). Child development knowledge and early childhood teacher preparation: Assessing the relationship—a special collection. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(96)90001-0 Goldstein, L. S. (2008). Teaching the standards is developmentally appropriate practice: Strategies for incorporating the sociopolitical dimension of DAP in early childhood teaching. ECE Journal, 36(3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10643-008-0268-x Gottlieb, M. (1995). A Developmentally Appropriate Practice Template. Illinois Resource Center. Gottlieb, M. (1997). A Developmentally Appropriate Practice Template: Administration and technical manual. Illinois Resource Center/OER Associates. Hegde, A. V., & Cassidy, D. J. (2009). Kindergarten teachers’ perspectives on developmentally appropriate practices (DAP): A study conducted in Mumbai (India). Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(3), 367–381. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02568540909594667

74 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li Hoot, J. L., Parmar, R. S., Hujala-Huttunen, E., Cao, Q., & Chacon, A. M. (1996). Cross- national perspectives on developmentally appropriate practices for early childhood programs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568549609594899 Huffman, L. R., & Speer, P. W. (2000). Academic performance among at-risk children: The role of developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00048-X Jipson, J. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: Culture, curriculum, connections. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 120–136. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15566935eed0202_4 Jones, I., & Gullo, D. F. (1999). Differential social and academic effects of developmentally appropriate practices and beliefs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568549909594749 Katz, L. (1996). Child development knowledge and teacher preparation: Confronting assumptions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 135–146. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0885-2006(96)90002-2 Kessler, S. A. (1991). Alternative perspectives on ECE. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(91)90006-7 Li, H., Rao, N., & Tse, S. K. (2012). Adapting Western pedagogies for Chinese literacy instruction: Case studies of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore preschools. Early Education & Development, 23(4), 603–621. Lubeck, S. (1996). Deconstructing “child development knowledge” and “teacher preparation.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 147–167. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0885-2006(96)90003-4 Lubeck, S. (1998). Is it developmentally appropriate practice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74(5), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1998.10521952 Mallory, B. L., & New, R. S. (Eds.). (1994a). Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for ECE. Teachers College Press. Mallory, B. L., & New, R. S. (1994b). Social constructivist theory and principles of inclusion: Challenges for early childhood special education. The Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699402800307 McMullen, M. B. (1999). Characteristics of teachers who talk the DAP talk and walk the DAP walk. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(2), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568549909594742 Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. Alliance for Childhood. Mitchell, L. C., & Hegde, A. V. (2007). Beliefs and practices of in-service preschool teachers in inclusive settings: Implications for personnel preparation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(4), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10901020701686617 NAEYC. (1984a). Accreditation criteria & procedures of the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs. NAEYC. NAEYC. (1984b). Guide to accreditation by the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs. NAEYC. NAEYC. (1986). Developmentally appropriate practice [Position statement]. NAEYC. NAEYC. (1996). Developmentally appropriate practice [Position statement]. NAEYC. NAEYC. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice [Position statement]. NAEYC. NAEYC. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice [Position statement]. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/ resources/position-statements/dap-statement_0.pdf

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Education 75 NAEYC. (2022). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (4th ed.). NAEYC. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. United States Department of Education. O’Brien, L. M. (1993). Teacher values and classroom culture: Teaching and learning in a rural, Appalachian Head Start program. Early Education and Development, 4(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0401_1 O’Brien, L. M. (2000). Engaged pedagogy: One alternative to “indoctrination” into DAP. Childhood Education, 76(5), 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056. 2000.10522114 Piaget, J. (1971a). Biology and knowledge. University of Chicago Press. Piaget, J. (1971b). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In D. R. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. B. Flamer, Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1–11). McGraw-Hill. Powell, D. (1994). Parents, pluralism, and the NAEYC statement on developmentally appropriate practice. In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for ECE (pp. 166–182). Teachers College Press. Rao, N., Sun, J., Pearson, V., Pearson, E., Liu, H., Constas, M. A., & Engle, P. L. (2012). Is something better than nothing? An evaluation of early childhood programs in Cambodia. Child development, 83(3), 864–876. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01746.x Sanders, K. E., Deihl, A., & Kyler, A. (2007). Dap in the ‘hood: perceptions of child care practices by African American child care directors caring for children of color. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecresq.2007.03.002 Spodek, B. (1988a). Implicit theories of early childhood teachers: Foundations for professional behavior. In B. Spodek, N. Saracho, & D. L. Peters (Eds.), Professionalism and the early childhood practitioner (pp. 161–172). Teachers College Press. Spodek, B. (1988b). The implicit theories of early childhood teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 38(1), 13–32. 10.1080/0300443880380102 Van Horn, M. L., Karlin, E., & Ramey, S. (2012) Effects of developmentally appropriate practices on social skills and problem behaviors in 1st through 3rd grades. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(1), 18–39. https://doi.org// 0.1080/02568543.2012.633843 Van Horn, M. L., & Ramey, S. L. (2003). The effects of developmentally appropriate practices on academic outcomes among former Head start students and classmates, grades 1–3. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 961–990. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/3699414 Vartuli, S. (1999). How early childhood teacher beliefs vary across grade level. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(4), 489–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0885-2006(99)00026-5 Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Walsh, D. J. (1991). Extending the discourse on developmental appropriateness: A developmental perspective. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0202_3 Zhu, J. (2009). Early childhood education and relative policies in China. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 3(1), 51–60.

76 Jennifer J. Chen and Philip Hui Li Zou, B., & Hackett, R. K. (2020). Shanghai preschool teachers’ developmentally appropriate beliefs and practices. Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar on Education Research and Social Science (ISERSS 2021). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 505 6th International Conference on Social Science and Higher Education, pp. 54–58. https://doi.org/10.2991/ assehr.k.220107.020

DOI: 10.4324/9781003274865-5 5 Play and Learning in the Early Years Conflicting or Complementing? Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen Play: A Difficult-to-Define Social Phenomenon Classical and Modern Theories of Play Play has been theorized in a plethora of ways (Li, 2007). However, according to Mellou (1994), the various play theories may be categorized into two main camps: (1) classical (e.g., the recreation or relaxation theory, the recapitulation theory) based on ideas about energy, human instincts and needs, and evolution, and (2) modern (e.g., the psychoanalytic theory, the metacommunicative theory, the cognitive theories) that builds on classical theories. Whether classical or modern, all play theories tend to encapsulate a process duality of personal articulation and social adaptation involving self, adult intervention, and/or peer interaction (Mellou, 1994). During the past two centuries, many classical, physiological-based theories have become popularized. Notably, the surplus energy theory propounded by Johann Christoph Friedrich Schiller (a German playwright, poet, and philosopher) (1875) and Herbert Spencer (an English sociologist and philosopher) (1873) identifies play as the key to which animals and humans liberate their excessive ebullient energy through physical activity. German philosopher and psychologist Moritz Lazarus (1883) proposed the recreation and relaxation theory of play to describe how humans restore the energy expended during daily activities by engaging in recreation and relaxation through play. American psychologist and educator G. Stanley Hall’s (1906) recapitulation theory of play refers to children vivifying and reenacting the various cultural stages of the evolution of the human race during development through play. In addition to the classical theories of play, there are also several modern theories of play. Notably, Freud (an Austrian neurologist and psychoanalysis founder) (1920) developed the psychoanalytic theory of play as yielding a catharsis effect in such a way that through play, children express their feelings and release negative emotions, thereby developing and increasing positive emotions. British and Canadian psychologist Daniel Berlyne’s (1960) arousal modulation theory of play contributes to understanding that children regulate their arousal due to various aspects of their external environment.

78 Philip Hui Li and Jennifer J. Chen English anthropologist, linguist, and social scientist Gregory Bateson’s (1956) metacommunicative theory of play is premised on the idea that play is a type of communication involving noticing and interpreting metacommunicative (verbal and nonverbal) signals by both the player and the observer, such as establishing the metamessage that “this is play” (p. 180). Modern theories of play include those from the cognitive school of thought that play signifies and promotes cognitive development and learning in young children. The most notable cognitive theorists include Piaget and Vygotsky. Specifically, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1952, 1962) believed that corresponding to their stages of cognitive development, there are four developmental stages of play: (1) “functional play,” (2) “constructive play,” (3) dramatic or symbolic play,” and (4) “games with rules.” Similarly, Soviet psychologist Vygotsky (1967) theorized that play promotes cognitive development and encourages abstract thought, highlighting particularly that [p]lay is the source of development and creates the zone of proximal development. Action in the imaginative sphere, in an imaginary situation, the creation of voluntary intentions and the formation of real-life plans and volitional motives – all appear in play and make it the highest level of preschool development. (p. 16) The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is cast as the difference between what a child can achieve unassisted and what they can achieve with assistance or “scaffolding.” To Vygotsky, play promotes cognitive development at a higher level within the ZPD. American sociologist Mildred Parten (1932, 1933) developed six categories of social participation in play among preschool children: (1) “unoccupied behavior,” (2) “solitary play,” (3) “onlooker behavior,” (4) “parallel play,” (5) “associative play,” and (6) “cooperative or organized supplementary play.” Focusing specifically on dramatic and sociodramatic forms of play, Israeli psychologist Sara Smilansky (1968) theorized that there are six elements of play: (1) “Imitative Role-Play”; (2) “Make-Believe objects, movements or verbal declarations”; (3) “Make-believe in regard to actions and situations”; (4) “Persistence in the play episode”; (5) Interaction; and (6) “Verbal Communication.” Among the various forms of play, free play, where children are free to engage in any type of play (e.g., sociodramatic play, constructive play with blocks), and specifically dramatic/sociodramatic play are considered the most common among preschool children (Chen, 2021, Chen & Kacerek, 2022). Dramatic/sociodramatic play is also known by other names, such as “pretend play”; “social pretend play” (e.g., Howes et al., 1992; Kavanaugh, 2011; Nicolopoulou, 2018); “free-flow play,” “imaginative play,” “fantasy play,” and “ludic play” (e.g., Beardsley & Harnett, 1998); and “symbolic play,” “imaginative play,” and “make-believe play” (Piaget, 1932; Vygotsky, 1978). All of these terms refer to a natural type of activity that allows

Play and Learning in the Early Years 79 children to explore their imagination and creativity, such as by pretending to be in the role of someone or something else. This type of play is beneficial for children’s learning and development of a myriad of skills, such as problem-solving, language, and communication (Vygotsky, 1978) and leadership and followership (Chen, 2021; Chen & Kacerek, 2022). Taken together, the literature suggests that play is a complex and diverse activity that can be theorized in many different ways. In the same vein, there is no one standard specification of play. It may be because most behaviors and activities that young children engage in can be called play. It may also be because play is infinitely varied and complex. It represents cognitive, cultural, historical, social, and physical interconnections between the known and the unknowing, the actual and the possible, the probable and the improbable. It is a dialogue between fantasy and reality, between past, present, and future, between the logical and the absurd, and between safety and risk. Given these complexities, it is hardly surprising that play has defied neat, tidy definitions. (Wood & Attfield, 1996, p. 4) Given the dynamic multiplicity of play, forming a unifying definition becomes a mission impossible. Nonetheless, in contemporary early childhood education (ECE), the cognitive theories of play developed by Piaget, Vygotsky, and Smilansky, as well as the social theory of play pioneered by Parten, appear to be well received by early childhood (EC) professionals. Likewise, contemporary researchers (e.g., Ailwood, 2003; Chen, 2021; Chen & Kacerek, 2022; Löfdahl, 2006) have also framed their own studies of play based on these theories. The Cultural-Historical Perspective on Play Vygotsky’s cognitive theory of theory has become particularly influential in ECE. We may glean from Vygotsky’s theorization four main points. First, play creates a space for concept formation and realization by linking everyday concepts with scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1967). For example, when children play house, they may learn about or enact what it means to be a mom or dad. According to Vygotsky, children can learn about the rules of behavior in everyday life by playing pretend. In the process, they may develop skills that are conducive to learning, such as developing creative and imaginative thinking. Second, according to Vygotsky (1967), “Play is the source of development and creates the zone of proximal development” (p. 16). To Vygotsky, play is what drives child development and through which children learn about the world in which they live. For example, to explore their surroundings, children under 3 years of age use actions such as sucking on fingers or maneuvering objects. As they get older, children begin substituting objects